The Year of the Surplus Male
The Ghost World in 2007
"Ought we not to conclude that even to the great Creator, almighty as he is, a certain process may be necessary, a certain time (or at least what appears to us as time) may be requisite, in order to form beings with those exalted qualities of mind which will fit them for his high purposes?"
Thomas Malthus …The Principles of Population
As Darwin read the Principles of Population, the Malthusian account of war, famine, and disease that thinned the ranks of society's downtrodden masses, his ability to detect underlying patterns in seemingly unrelated facts led him down that fateful pathway that would be the cathartic moment in the deteriorating relationship between science and religion.
If animals and plants inherit their characteristics from their parents, and inheritance is subject to mutation, then the application of the Malthusian principle of intraspecies competition necessitated a natural selection of inherited traits. It could be no other way. Given inheritance, mutation, and competition, natural selection wasn't just a theory, it was a first-order mathematical equation.
Thus, Darwin's version of natural selection was inspired by human behavior, plucked right from the pages of the Principles of Population, and not just once. Alfred Wallace, like Darwin, had little formal training in the biological sciences, but came to exactly the same conclusion reading exactly the same essay.
This theoretical confluence of these two scientific outsiders had actually been in the air since the ancient Greeks and their "ladder of life", but the scientific breach of religion didn't get serious until Carolus Linnaeus, in his Systema Naturae, unceremoniously lumped humans into the same order as chimpanzees, about 100 years earlier than Darwin's initial evolutionary musings.
But the real father of natural selection was neither Darwin nor Wallace. The ever-gracious Darwin credited W. C. Wells with the informal proposal of natural selection, published in 1818, which was ignored by the scientific community, still heavily under the influence of Christian theology.
While natural selection was Darwin's adopted child, sexual selection was his baby, something that his co-author of evolution, Wallace, would have nothing to do with. Darwin, in the Origin of Species, defined sexual selection as the "struggle between individuals of one sex, usually males, for the possession of the other sex". Sexual selection was Darwin's solution to the evolution of traits that seemed to have neutral or negative survival value: the peacock's tail or the elaborate songs of the male finches.
Darwin framed his argument for sexual selection based on non-human species, which was probably a good thing. Humans are the most sophisticated and culturally managed animal when it comes to deciding how to pick their mates, and sexual selection is highly subordinate to natural selection: the traits most desired in the opposite sex typically have the greatest reproductive value, such as male wealth and female youth and beauty.
This reciprocal model of sexual selection, where female youth and beauty have become inextricably linked with male wealth, is the foundation for social classes. The evolutionary theory of assortive mating translates into a theory of social classes when applied to humans.
Since Conservatives and Liberals have different reproductive strategies, they also have slightly different strategies when it comes to sexual selection. In 2007, we found that Conservatives are shifted towards personality, physical appearance, and wealth, which could arguably be a strategy of higher reproductive output; while the Liberals were shifted towards intelligence, which could be interpreted as a reproductive strategy that compensates for lower fertility rates.
In 2007, our discussions on the reproductive trends of Conservatives and Liberals drew the most interest from our readers, particularly in how they apply to the cross-species phenomenon of surplus males. In studying fertility trends by political-religious affiliation, we inadvertently stumbled upon a trend with major evolutionary overtones: the world-wide decline in fertility rates is being accompanied by a genetic squeeze of the low-income males (see At World's End?). They are having their genes wiped from the human gene pool at a faster pace than high-income males.
Since our survey was heavily weighted towards white Americans, we cannot be sure that this same phenomenon is happening in other countries, but we suspect this to be an expected by-product of natural selection, that is, as fertility rates decline, the percentage of males that reproduce declines more rapidly, as females become more selective to compensate for lower fertility rates. However, we suspect that this phenomenon also correlates with a greater contribution of females to reproductive investment.
The principle targets of this genetic squeeze are the Liberal males and low income males. While the collapse of white Liberal fertility is more likely to be self-selected, as it is also impacting Liberal females, the decline of the low-income male is more likely to be the result of female sexual selection. Keep in mind that there is a mild correlation between low-income males and liberalism.
The social impact of surplus males, or males that do not reproduce, is certainly dependent on many factors. Some theories predict a surge in violence, crime, and social unrest in areas with long-term elevations in the male sex ratio. However, the sex ratio is only one factor in determining male reproductive success, as female sexual selection operates in an analogous manner.
However, unreproductive males do not have to reproduce to promote the presence of their genes in the human gene pool. They can engage in altruistic behaviors towards close kin, or even worse, spiteful behaviors towards genetic distance. Due to the fact that the female ovum is the limiting resource in reproduction, males are more likely to commit altruistic suicide across a wider genetic distance than are females. They are also more likely to engage in violent behavior against genetic distance (see Exclusive Fitness). In a Hamas study of suicide bombers, 50% came from household sizes between 8-15.
The evolutionary impact of male surpluses for reproduction are instrumental in the microevolution of species. However, as a process that facilitates speciation, the impact is more speculative. As of today, there is no research on the genetic impact of contemporary female sexual selection patterns. However, we suspect a slight shift in the genes associated with the functioning of the monoamine neurotransmitter systems, dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin; and also the steroid hormones.
Politics and Diet
The brain is a very expensive organ with regards to its energy utilization, sucking in as much as 30% of the body's total calorie intake. It also is one of the last organs shut down during starvation, and has an interesting hierarchy of functionality that is modulated by the level of food intake. It is therefore no surprise that diet is a factor in human behavior. But is it a factor in political-religious disposition?
In 2007, we reported that Liberals were more likely to be vegetarians than Conservatives (see Carnivores and Herbivores). While this was to be expected, there were some interesting trends pertaining to vegetarians and political disposition. First, across all political dispositions, the vegetarians were more liberal. That is, the vegetarian Conservatives were more liberal than the meat-eating Conservatives, the vegetarian Liberals were more liberal than the meat-eating Liberals, etc.
Second, the vegetarians also reported becoming more liberal over time. This was also true, to a lesser extent, with those preferring chicken and turkey. On the other hand, those preferring pork, lamb, and especially beef indicated they were becoming more conservative.
We proposed that the dopamine system may be the active neurotransmitter in causing this interesting result, as meat and dairy products are rich in tyrosine, which is used in the synthesis of dopamine. Based on the dopamine theory of conservatism, a long-term diet rich in the building blocks of dopamine will increase dopamine tone, making people more conservative over time. As odd as it might seem, political-religious disposition and diet may not be such strange bedfellows after all.
The Politics of Genetic Distance
As life itself is fundamentally about chemistry, so are politics and religion--the chemistry of DNA. Humans can be crudely thought of as walking and talking support systems for the replication of their DNA. However, unlike the haphazard manner in which free molecules interact, humans are more complex in the way they manage the reproduction of their genes, and consequently, how they handle genetic distance.
This is apparent in the divergence in sexual selection by political and religious affiliation. Genetic distance modulates altruism and spite, and humans are far from homogenous in the way they direct these behaviors. Nuclear family groups are highly communistic, as resources are often distributed based on need. But as genetic distance grows, communal behaviors break down.
Conservatives and Liberals, on average, draw the lines between altruism, indifference, and spite at different points, and their variations in social behavior are most exposed as population sizes and genetic distance increase. Fundamentally, this hints at different approaches as to how they manage the hetero and homozygosity of the alleles in their offspring.
As we noted in 2007, white Conservatives are more likely to seek partners of the same race than are white Liberals, and seem to assign a lower reproductive value to the genes of other races, on average (see Who are the Caucasians attracted to?). Racial preference in mate selection is a key indicator for genetic distance in offspring. That is, offspring from racially mixed couples will be more genetically divergent from their parents, on average. While males were less particular about race than females, the conservative segment of the male political spectrum was elevated when it came to the preference for one's own race.
What are the genetic ramifications of this behavior? Liberals are engaged in a higher rate of interracial genetic mixing, which would mean that they are more likely to create offspring with greater genetic variation. Whether this is an advantage depends on many factors, but the autosomal genetic disorders that plague isolated or consanguineous breeding populations certainly provides a strong case for a certain rate of gene inflow.
This also raises a question about the coefficient of inbreeding (F), which defines the percentage of identical gene copies across all gene loci over and above the baseline level of homozygosity (for the total population). Do Liberals have a lower value of F than Conservatives? An interesting question indeed. Unfortunately, we are a long way from large scale genetic studies by political affiliation.
However, genetic studies of religious groups are numerous. Since religiosity is highly correlated with conservatism, these studies can be used as a proxy for political disposition. Indeed, there is a positive correlation between F and religiosity, particularly when religiosity leads to reproductive isolation, as in Amish or Hutterite colonies.
However, F is inversely proportional with population density, and resolving the respective contributions of religious-conservatism and population density towards F is fraught with multicollinearity issues.
Religions that recruit heavily, such as the Mormons, create a constant inflow of new genes. Genetic drift among the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites is much higher than found in the Utah Mormon population. The relationship between genetics and political-religious disposition is an interesting one, and we certainly suspect that detectable levels of genetic drift come primarily from the most religious and conservative of the population.
The Secret Symbiosis - The Binding Force Between Conservatives and Liberals
While the political and religious differences between Conservatives and Liberals act as a sort of repulsive social force, there is indeed a compelling attractive force that binds them together: economic specialization. Right under their own noses, Conservatives and Liberals have organized into quite a division of labor, and their brains are indeed specialized, on average, to perform complementary economic tasks. In fact, the Conservatives and Liberals are the most economically symbiotic of all the political cohorts.
Animals tend to specialize in the way they extract energy from the habitat, especially as population density increases, with humans being the most spectacular case. The number of economic roles increases with population density, and becomes a socially binding force.
The differences in the occupational patterns by political affiliation are interesting, and we believe they substantiate our rather wild theory that Conservatives are more likely to displace mass, that is, move things around. There is indeed a method to the madness of this theory, which is ultimately based on the elevated reproductive levels of Conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to be in occupations such as transportation, manufacturing, construction, energy, agriculture, trade, and utilities.
The Liberals are more likely to be in health care, information services, education, journalism, and the arts. The Liberals just happen to be in occupations with a lesser impact on the environment, while Conservatives are more likely to be in occupations that support reproduction, and leave larger ecological footprints. The differences in environmental attitudes can ultimately be traced to the divergent reproductive rates of the Conservatives and Liberals.
Sex and the Single Political Cohort
The sex lives of our favorite political and religious cohorts came under a lot of scrutiny in 2007, and while we were disappointed at the response rates to our survey, we were still able to gather some interesting facts about their reproductive lives.
First, there is a very simple reason why the religious Conservatives tend to oppose sex education in the classroom: it interferes with their reproductive strategies. The religious Conservatives are dependent on long-term monogamous relationships with high reproductive rates, and contraceptive practices diminish the reproductive yield of this strategy.
But perhaps the key variable we were able to extract from our sex survey as it pertains to political-religious disposition was the desire to have children. The Conservatives, especially the religious Conservatives, had a substantial elevation in the number of children desired when compared to the secular liberals.
What is driving this desire? Obviously, the desire for offspring seems to have surpassed the desire for sex in contributing to reproductive output. The secular Liberals report higher arousal to a wider variety of sexual stimuli and also report more total orgasms (masturbation + intercourse), yet have less heterosexual intercourse than the religious Conservatives.
Thus, while the Liberals seem to be more sexually aroused, they have substantially lowered the reproductive output associated with sex via higher utilization of birth control; a lowered tendency to be in a relationship that supports reproduction; a greater tendency towards masturbation and non-reproductive sex practices; a greater tendency to suppress reproduction in higher population densities; and a desire for children that is so low that they have fallen way behind the religious Conservatives in fertility.
But in the bigger picture, sexual and social behavior are tightly integrated, and form the basis of the reproductive strategy, which itself is the foundation for political-religious disposition. High-yield reproductive strategies are predominantly expressed by religious-Conservatism, which employ high rates of monogamy, high levels of ingroup altruism, a high reproductive valence to sexual behavior, and high levels of parental investment.
At the other end of this reproductive spectrum are the secular liberals, whose reproductive strategies are notable by a lower reproductive valence to sexual behavior; lower durations of their relationships; a lower probability to be in a relationship that supports reproduction; and an elevation in their masturbation frequency, which interestingly, may be working to down-regulate their dopamine systems and up-regulate their serotonergic systems. Liberals have substantially undermined fertility in sexual behavior, and replaced it with a sort of sociosexuality, that is, sexual behavior that reduces intragroup competition and aggression.
The Monarch Species
So there we have it, some of the highlights of our findings in 2007. As the United States heads towards its 2008 national election, the political-religious zoo is under the spell of many diverse trends: the long-term elevated reproductive rates of the white religious Conservatives; the slow rise of ethnoliberalism; the increase in the proportion of surplus males; the increased value of the female ovum; the ongoing psychological impact of the Iraqi war; the allostatic load associated with economic trends; the psychological impact of global warming and world resource competition (particularly oil); dietary trends and their impact on political-religious disposition; etc, etc, etc.
Humans have reached a special status in the evolution of life on earth: a monarch species. With humans, culture has become the predominate engine of natural selection and intra and interspecies competition. The human advantage in survival is its capacity for dynamic culture. But dynamic culture is the Pandora's Box of evolution, the event that would drive not only the evolution of human beings, but also the subsequent evolution of life on earth. The arrival of dynamic human culture has hit the planet like an asteroid.
To date, this human dominance has been very difficult for most of the other occupants of this planet. Estimates of species extinction range from about 2,000 to 100,000 annually, and the rate appears to be accelerating. The human thirst for energy has led them to modify their territories so much that few species can still survive in them without human assistance.
While the human ascent to monarch species of the planet Earth has left a debris trail of thousands of extinct species, it has also led to the discovery and control of how those species came to be in the first place--DNA. Humans have breached the perimeter of their own concept of God, and are knocking at the door of synthetic biology: they will soon be replenishing the earth with a wide variety of human-designed viruses and bacteria.
This human intervention in the creation of new species is the dawn of the new era of evolution. Just like in the Book of Genesis, the monarch species is taking control of both species creation and destruction, and will circumvent the ordinary mechanisms of natural selection.
In the middle of this new era of evolution stand the Conservatives and Liberals, the yin and yang, the unity of opposites, with cognitive and behavioral diversity that is simultaneously antagonistic and symbiotic. These two eternal foes have anchored this human propensity for dynamic culture, and have propelled mankind into its monarch status. Will man be king of a world depleted of species, save for those he creates and the short list of those that have been beneficial to him; or will he rule the world like a benevolent god, with nothing to be gained other than the appreciation of the beauty of nature?
Somewhere in the ghost world lies the answer.
Charles Brack, January 2008
13