Why males are doomed, even more than we thought before.
P.T. Barnum (or someone) famously said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” He might more accurately have said, “There are 122 suckers born per minute.”
That’s the rate at which male babies are coming into the world today, and every single one of them is a sucker.
Not that this is anything new. Human males have always been suckers. What’s different now is that human females previously couldn’t do anything about the situation. Emerging technologies are changing that.
Allow me to explain.
I contend that everything human males do is fundamentally driven by a desire to reproduce. We are a carrier for our genes. This idea is not original to me, of course. But it struck me with force the other day, and I want to try to impart how basic and how all-encompassing the reality of it is for our gender.
From the time we begin to display an individual, personal will—as toddlers and perhaps even earlier—the irresistible urge to make ourselves desirable and successful as mates is the dominant force in our lives. It may be mostly subconscious (and for a given fraction of males, the urge is directed toward other males instead of females), but almost every boy and every man lives his whole life under the grip of a drive he has no hope of denying.
Think about everything you do. Examine each action in turn. Can you see how what you do is always aimed at either making yourself more desirable to a potential mate (who, by the way, does not have to be your current spouse or lover), and/or more attractive as a possible provider for the offspring of that mating?
Men are inherently competitive. It’s part of our animal nature. Other species act out this competition for status and power—qualities seen as desirable by females, who seek a mate to provide them and their offspring with protection and other advantages—through ritualistic fighting or other displays of strength and fitness. Human males do the same thing, except we act out the ritual competitions in school classes, on playing fields, in bars, on dance floors, in workplaces, on committees, ad infinitum.
We continually prepare ourselves and compete for the chance to reproduce. We may pretend to be doing other things; we may even think that we live on a higher plane. In truth, we are slaves to our reproductive urges. We are suckers because we allow ourselves to be fooled—or we fool ourselves—into believing otherwise.
Some of us go through periods when our confidence wanes. This can result in the typical “mid-life crisis” when steps are often taken by men that seem quite obviously intended to make them more attractive as mates or providers: they might buy a fancy car, lose weight, get a toupee, or simply have an affair. Not much mystery about what they’re trying to accomplish.
At other times, the crisis of confidence can persist and slide into clinical depression. In that condition, the male is unlikely to be successful at attracting new partners, or even keeping current partners. This may lead to a downward spiral where the man feels continually worse, takes increasingly poor care of himself, and consequently becomes even less desirable. The sad reality is that these men are proving themselves unfit as good gene carriers, and natural selection is winnowing them from the process.
As I said at the beginning, women have always had to choose from among the available men living near them when their time came to begin bearing and raising children. This was true even though men by their natures carried many unpleasant qualities: they were notoriously unfaithful as lovers (not to mention usually providing little satisfaction in bed); they frequently found excuses not to help with domestic chores, preferring the company of other men instead; they were far too often argumentative, frustratingly competitive, ridiculously jealous, and likely to start fights with other men for no reason the women could see. Worst of all, men would begin wars, go off to fight them, and maybe never come back.
Women have been stuck with these nearly unbearable beasts through the whole life of the human species. But they’re starting to gain other choices. They can now reproduce on their own, through donor sperm, and soon they may be able to do so through cloning, either using their own starter cells, those of others they like, or some combination. A whole new range of reproductive opportunities are opening up for women, and many of those do not involve men.
We’ve always been suckers. Now we run the risk of being obsolete.
Mike Treder is the Managing Director of the IEET, and former Executive Director of the non-profit Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
Print •
Email •
permalink •
Discuss in Forums •
Send to: ¡
¡
COMMENTS
I'll post the first comment here and predict that at least one woman will say, "But I like men. I have no desire to live without them."
Sure you do, but the question is, why do you like men so much? And the answer is, because evolution has bred that quality into you. If women did not find men sufficiently attractive, our species would soon become extinct.
But if enough rational, far-sighted women begin to see the value of a posthuman world with undesirable male characteristics eliminated, then, well, goodbye...
If you have read the Selfish Gene, then you should know that Dawkins made no claims about the motivations for individuals. The book was in fact arguing against individual selection in favor of selection at the level of the gene.
A particular gene may be more successful by doing things contrary to maximizing the amount of times the specific individual breeds.
This is what causes altruism and empathy. Mutual aid is as important a factor in evolution as competition, as good ol Kropotkin argued over a hundred years ago.
However, men like women will be able to access those same techniques of the posthuman world. Although it may require a little more advances for men, they too will have access to cloning and be able to reproduce, without having to resort to competition (a need that may be excised from our pool, too).
In addition, virtual reality, not to mention post-Singularity, will have their own effect on reproduction, and on the competitive mindset.
Moaning aside, men still control almost all of the planet's resources, including access to reproductive technologies. Much of male posturing, from outsized pectorals to outsized empires, is aimed at other men, not women.
A reductionist view of men is that they're like male lions: their primary function, by their own choice, is to "defend" women and children from others like them. And when men get depressed, their most common response is to go at those around them with fists or guns. If men collectively decide they're becoming obsolete, they'll annihilate the planet on their way out, a funeral pyre for their vanity. Tiptree's "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" is still depressingly relevant to this issue.
Clint Johnson • British Columbia, Canada • Apr 3, 2009
1)Women are every bit the slave to the reproduction imperative as the males of our species.
2)There is no empirical evidence on the reproductive health, strength and intelligence of the male when all the woman has to look at is a few pages of statistics that may or may not be accurate and a vial of sperm that looks the same for the chronic masturbating sociopathic janitor working at the donor clinic as it does for the brain surgeon tri-athlete that is on the label.
3)Rational women will know that it will take months or years to make even a preliminary judgement on the viability of the male as a contributor of DNA and... uhhh... then again, rational women are about as rare as rational men.
Would any gay readers of this article like to address the statement, "I contend that everything human males do is fundamentally driven by a desire to reproduce."?
the sex drive doesn't make one aware of the desire to procreate just to have sex and to behave in ways that make one more likely to have sex
(to increase one's status in a way that the social group will recognize as being dominant and therefore sexy)
just like beliefs about the afterlife can cause one to take their life - believing that men will satisfy your sexual appetite more than women subverts the procreational drive
Mike, I know this is not very politically correct, but I must remind something to you and to the readers:
...dramatic pause...
most females are suckers too
Most of us are suckers, regardless of gender -- Mike and I, and you the reader, are very probably no exception. Let's acknowledge it, and let's think of what we can do about it.
You're right, Giulio, although the reproductive urges of men are still a bit more basic. We evolved with the ability to spread our seed widely, to propagate with potentially thousands of women. By contrast, females can only reproduce about once a year. Their drives are also somewhat more complex, as they have stronger bonds to their children once born.
As you say, however, the point of all this is to recognize that humans 1.0 are dominated by primitive, natural, often subconscious demands; we are just now entering a time when we might choose how to alter those drives and make ourselves into something better suited for a 21st century world and beyond.
As offensive as your "all men are philandering pigs and they can't help it! It's genetics" evo-psych claptrap is, I'll step around it to come at the subject from a different, more transhumanist angle:
Given that in the not-too-distant future, technology will give us near absolute control over our own biology, including hormone levels, genital arrangements, and so forth, why would the presence or lack thereof of primitive reproductive drives matter one whit?
Take one of those "suckers" being born right now. Let's say I grant your argument that they're genetically predestined to be cursed with an uncontrollable sexuality, a violent temper, an inability to wash the dishes, etc. etc. Woe is them! Except odds are that by the time they've grown up, they'll have access to drugs that will allow them to adjust their level of sexual fidelity, adjust their violent impulses, adjust their domestic chore-doing-ness* and any other inconvenient genetic predispositions.
Honestly, genetic predispositions are far, far less of a problem than inculturated values. Biology can be compensated for chemically and technologically. Cultural values can only be changed by the terrible and unthinkable process of critically examining one's own assumptions. Maybe men aren't doomed--just sexist, unthinking chauvinists. Hey, that doesn't sound so bad!
*You seriously think that's a result of a genetic predisposition. I can't...no.
Well said, heresiarch. We're much more hardwired culturally than we'd like to think. Did you know that some so-called futurists are seriously postulating the existence of "rape genes"? This in a species that does not have alpha males, and is as closely related to bonobos as to chimpanzees. And this is the topic of long discussions that reach the predestined conclusion that women are not fully human. The goalposts of the definition shift, the outcome is the same. You have to laugh, to stop from weeping. And wonder when the next bus is for Epsilon Eridani.
I think there are two sides to every argument. Mike, you're missing the side that says that men and women both have more avenues available to satisfy their inbred urges and as technology progresses, those may extend right into our brains to negate those biological distractions. This may finally free us from our (biological) selves and allow us to concentrate more time and effort toward more worthy goals. Just as the time we spent toward hunting for food and preparing meals was once something that required a great deal of our time and effort, this should go by the wayside one day also. Then we can appreciate each other for the real "inner beauty" each one of us is capable of demonstrating when we don't have these biological needs to distract us.
Clint Johnson • British Columbia, Canada • May 19, 2009
Neil, if we curtail "these biological needs", how will that lead to us appreciating the "real "inner beauty" each one of us is capable of demonstrating"?
The only reason we have any interest whatsoever in each other are those very biological needs that you are denigrating. Without these needs driving social interaction, other humans are merely distractions unless they can perform some valid function to any goal we may set. Compound that with a reasonable conclusion that completely divorcing us from our biological needs leaves us with no rational reason to pursue any goal including continued existence.
The only reason we appreciate any qualities in another human is this innate biological imperative. These "inner beauty" qualities are simply biologically driven value judgements that are of secondary importance from a reproductive standpoint- they persist only because they have some smaller value as survival factors.
I say work with the "sticks and carrots of evolution" and revel in our biological needs... but temper them with a respect for other and societal constraints against doing harm to those others.
Understand it and direct it, don't pretend it is anything less than what we are in total.
Neil, I basically agree with you, but I also think there is a strong argument to be made that the hardwired (not culturally implanted) psychological traits of women are better suited for flourishing in the modern world. As I suggested in the original piece, unless we can modify our wetware, men may not have a very promising future.
heresiarch and Athena, you seem to have missed the main point of what I wrote. I did not say nor would I imply that any man should be forgiven for displaying "an uncontrollable sexuality" or "a violent temper" -- or even for not behaving fairly in domestic chore-doing. Men like that are indeed selfish brutes and should not be excused by virtue of an "I can't help it" argument. That's ridiculous.
Humans are very smart, advanced, rational creatures, capable of moderating our given impulses to a large degree. But we can only do that if we are aware of how deeply such natural urges operate. So it's not only the obvious ways in which men are played for fools by their hormones, but in the other ways that we typically don't think about. That level of sharper awareness is what I was getting at.
Finally, Athena, I'm not so sure that our species does not have alpha males. What about during the 99% of human duration in which small bands and tribes were dominated by strong, successful males? Nearly all of those chiefs, kings, big men, and other leaders had open access to the most desirable women, whether as multiple wives or concubines. Even today, highly powerful men are still likely to use their positions of superiority to privately gather a string of potential mating partners, whether or not pregnancy is actually intended.
biologically we don't have alpha males. Baboons and gorillas do. Chimpanzees, bonobos and humans don't.
Culturally, you're confusing the gatherer/hunter era with that of advanced agriculture. Small or medium size bands were usually not dominated by big chiefs, they were ruled by broad consensus (the Plains nations are a good example of recent societies run along those lines). Women were not chattel and decided who their mates were to be -- though neither gender was free from family or peer pressure. The same relative "flat" social organization held in early agricultural communties.
Women as chattel and high-level polygyny came into existence only when agriculture gave rise to the rigid stratified societies in which leaders were treated and behaved as gods -- and in which mobility had decreased due to the advent of specialization and concentration of food reserves, so that people couldn't vote with their feet.
Postscript: The use of the term "alpha male" is a sterling example of a metaphor that suited prevailing tastes and wishes so well that it's now taken for biological fact. If you want to go beyond tarzanism passing as "bold non-PC" thinking, you can always read Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's truly groundbreaking books. Here's a good starting summary:
Clint Johnson • British Columbia, Canada • May 22, 2009
Any pronouncement on how our ancestors functioned socially before we have contemporary (or near enough) written testimony says far more about the person doing the pronouncing it then it does about those long forgotten times.
I live in an area that has a large Carrier population and there are still couples where the husband stole his wife from one of the nearby tribes. Not an arranged or voluntary thing at all- he went there and used force or stealth to take her away from her family. Was that a regular occurrence a hundred years ago? Yes. Was it a regular occurrence 10,000 years ago? Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the faintest idea.
The only evidence against true alpha males in a prehistoric environment is the general rule of thumb that "high-level polygyny" is only practical when a society and technology is advanced enough to allow a single man to actually provide for an extended family. In a traditional hunter gatherer society, it would be very difficult for one man to adequately provide for and protect a half dozen wives and the attendant children.
Tens of thousands of years and hundreds of millions of people mean that pretty much any social structure we can imagine has had its time and place. It only seems reasonable that there were many times in the past where a charismatic and supremely capable male came to dominate small tribes to the near exclusion of all other reproductive age males.
Clint said, "Any pronouncement on how our ancestors functioned socially before we have contemporary (or near enough) written testimony says far more about the person doing the pronouncing it then it does about those long forgotten times."
I agree on the cultural side. Which is why the blanket alpha male pronouncements are either excuses or fond wishes, in my opinion. Biologically, alpha males exist in "pyramidal" species in which rank is both strict and rigid. Our near relatives are not organized in such pyramids. Their hierarchies are both shallow and fluid.
I should also add that archaeological evidence shows that early agricultural settlements were also hierarchically "flat", which suggests that their nomadic and semi-nomadic predecessors were even more so: no ostentatious palaces or tombs.
Written language came into existence when stratification was well along -- in fact, scripts developed to keep tallies of slaves and food reserves controlled by priest-kings. If we want to have a glimpse of ancestral social arrangements, the San !Kung are the closest extant example (were, before war and other global phenomena perturbed their culture).
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376