Why are there so many males on this planet?

[Janina Edison]

In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.

The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.

There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.

The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

[CathParks]

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.

From 'Men Behaving Badly':

Gary:
Did you know that a single yoghurt-pot of my semen could re-populate
Ireland...?

Dorothy:
Oh, Gary. Don't you think the Irish have had a tragic enough history without
you turning up with your yoghurt-pots...?

C.

[shane]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water

Drink water! If you know only this type of man, no wonder you are so
against the male of the species.

Post by Janina Edison
and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.

Well rather like the Intelligent Designer, she did a rather poor job of
her creation. Apparently it is a cross entity female thing, to generally
be poor at engineering.

Post by Janina Edison
Men are not
important, only for mating.

And killing spiders.

Post by Janina Edison
And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth. 5-10% men would be enough.

If you get rid of too many, who will kill the spiders?

Post by Janina Edison
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced,

Hey we're not the only ones with weight problems.

Post by Janina Edison
it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Well I don't know about that, I suspect that your cull will only leave
the water drinkers, and you may find that they lack the essential
requirements to be able to make it in the mating stakes.

Closing comment, just for the fun of it; if there was anything difficult
about having babies, god would have had men do it.

[SeekUp]

Post by shane
Closing comment, just for the fun of it; if there was anything difficult
about having babies, god would have had men do it.

And if men had babies they would have only one.

[Cheezits]

Post by shane

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water

Drink water! If you know only this type of man, no wonder you are so
against the male of the species.

Someone's been drinking all the beer!

[etc.]

Post by shane

Post by Janina Edison
And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth. 5-10% men would be enough.

If you get rid of too many, who will kill the spiders?

What do you have against spiders?!

Post by shane

Post by Janina Edison
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced,

What are you going to do, poison their mashed potatoes?

Post by shane
Hey we're not the only ones with weight problems.

Post by Janina Edison
it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I thought it was humyn survival.

Post by shane
Well I don't know about that, I suspect that your cull will only leave
the water drinkers, and you may find that they lack the essential
requirements to be able to make it in the mating stakes.

You need stakes for mating?!

Post by shane
Closing comment, just for the fun of it; if there was anything difficult
about having babies, god would have had men do it.

Nah, they would just outsource it.

Sue

[TeaWreckes]

Post by Cheezits

Post by shane
Well I don't know about that, I suspect that your cull will only leave
the water drinkers, and you may find that they lack the essential
requirements to be able to make it in the mating stakes.

You need stakes for mating?!

Yes, because in the "Nyw Era of Womyn", mating will more closely resemble
the mating habits of the praying mantis, where the female kills and eats the
male. Only in the "Nyw Era of Womyn" men will be killed after mating by
driving a stake thru their heart, and then cutting them up into steaks to be
eaten.

[boikat]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Nothing to do all day but have sex with womyn that look like Vivica Fox or
Halle Barry.

Sounds like Guy Paradise.

I like it.

(Hey, you have *your* fantasy, I have mine!)

Boikat

[wade.hines@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com]

Post by boikat

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Nothing to do all day but have sex with womyn that look like Vivica Fox or
Halle Barry.
Sounds like Guy Paradise.
I like it.
(Hey, you have *your* fantasy, I have mine!)

But then you have to read the fine print.

All males will be kept on an island where there are no females.
A male nurse named Igor will assist with your being milked twice
a day up until age 23 when your prime usage will be ended.

It is possible that then you will be put into the gladatorial
games as watching other guys kill each other is a cheaper
way of boosting the youngsters testosterone levels than injections.

[boikat]

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by boikat

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Nothing to do all day but have sex with womyn that look like Vivica Fox or
Halle Barry.
Sounds like Guy Paradise.
I like it.
(Hey, you have *your* fantasy, I have mine!)

But then you have to read the fine print.
All males will be kept on an island where there are no females.
A male nurse named Igor will assist with your being milked twice
a day up until age 23 when your prime usage will be ended.

That's not in my fantasy. Where is that in my fantasy???

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com
It is possible that then you will be put into the gladatorial
games as watching other guys kill each other is a cheaper
way of boosting the youngsters testosterone levels than injections.

No, no, no, no. That's not in my fantasy either. Ummm, unless the weapons
are all nerf balls and nerf arrows, and the womyn attend to the victor *and*
the vanquished. Some guys are sensative to losing on the field of battle
and having a sympathetic wench going "poor baby, did you hurt your widdle
head" and kissing the "ouchi" doesn't sound too bad.....Sort of a "Valhalla"
thing.

That, and there's still the added incentive of winning. The winner gets the
babes, the loser has to screw the fat broad in the corner that makes strange
body noises, smells funny, and has an "Eat at Joe's" tatoo above her belly
button, and below her belly button a tatoo of an arrow pointing down with
the name "Joe's place" right above it.

Boikat

[JPG]

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

[John Wilkins]

Post by JPG

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

And *somebody* has to be able to not ask directions.

[AC]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:46:33 +1000,

Post by John Wilkins

Post by JPG

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

And *somebody* has to be able to not ask directions.

Or read the instructions. Or get the right brand of the womyn's favorite
brand of popcorn.

[Cheezits]

Post by AC
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:46:33 +1000,

Post by John Wilkins

Post by r norman
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200, Janina Edison

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

And *somebody* has to be able to not ask directions.

Or read the instructions. Or get the right brand of the womyn's
favorite brand of popcorn.

The heck with that - I just want someone to move the furniture when I get
bored with it. Oh, and leave the toilet seat up.

Sue

[wade.hines@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com]

Post by Cheezits

Post by AC
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:46:33 +1000,

Post by John Wilkins

Post by r norman
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200, Janina Edison

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

And *somebody* has to be able to not ask directions.

Or read the instructions. Or get the right brand of the womyn's
favorite brand of popcorn.

The heck with that - I just want someone to move the furniture when I get
bored with it. Oh, and leave the toilet seat up.

Tell the truth now. Does "it" refer to the furniture?

[Cheezits]

[etc.]

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Cheezits
The heck with that - I just want someone to move the furniture when I
get bored with it. Oh, and leave the toilet seat up.

Tell the truth now. Does "it" refer to the furniture?

Well, what else could I get bored with? <smirk>

Sue

[u***@hotmail.com]

Post by John Wilkins

Post by JPG

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

And *somebody* has to be able to not ask directions.

I've noticed that the women in my life always tell *me to ask the
directions...

Post by John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

Kermit

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by JPG

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

And for gathering resources while the "mother goddess" raises the kids.

[u***@hotmail.com]

Post by JPG

Post by Janina Edison
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating

And for sticking their hands down the toilet when it is blocked.
And for killing bugs in the bedroom.
And for maintaining overall driving standards.

As Carrie Snow says, "How important *is parallel parking, anyway?"

Post by JPG
And for their superior ability to fart.
And for carrying the garbage.
And for their ability to pee standing up.

Kermit

[Wakboth]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.

Is a female troll a trollop?

-- Wakboth

[Matt Silberstein]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200, in talk.origins , Janina Edison

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

How you gonna do it?
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

[Mark Loy]

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200, in talk.origins , Janina Edison

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

How you gonna do it?

Yard sale.









ML

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:02:46 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Matt Silberstein

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200, in talk.origins , Janina Edison

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

How you gonna do it?

She'll bore them to death.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[r norman]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200, Janina Edison

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Somebody has been reading far too much about honeybees, praying
mantids, and black widow spiders!

More seriously, there is an important biological point here that has
been well discussed. See, for example, "The End of Men?" from NPR at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4225769

It does only take a very few males to make enough sperm to produce
the next generation and many species have found parthenogenesis to be
a very effective way of doing without any. However, all of us idle
and useless drones hang around simply to provide an enormous amount of
genetic diversity. As long as everything runs well we are not needed,
but when things turn sour then you better have us nearby or your
species is doomed!

[SeekUp]

<snip> However, all of us idle
and useless drones hang around simply to provide an enormous amount of
genetic diversity.

Not to mention some degree of entertainment.

[CreateThis]

... Men are not important, only for mating.

So you propose role reversal?

CT

[Lilith (Deanne Taylor)]

From my perspective, the more males, the better. It gives me all that

genetic diversity to -- admire. Yea, that's it!

D

[Robert Grumbine]

From my perspective, the more males, the better. It gives me all that
genetic diversity to -- admire. Yea, that's it!

Spoken like a true biologist.

[d***@hotmail.com]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival

Men are finding all sorts of clever ways to kill one another, to
achieve your ideal. But you have to understand, these things take
time.

Dave

[dkomo]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.

That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.

If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.

In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.

The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.


--***@cris.com

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.

There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.

If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.

Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[wade.hines@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.

To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.

The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.

This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).

In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

Post by Ken Shackleton
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.
To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.
The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.
This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).
In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

This might be true if the womyn select the surviving male at random.
This would be unlikely. The selfish gene would work towards producing
that single surviving male, AND producing as many female offspring as
possible.

In the end, fewer males are born, and they fit the criteria for
survival better.

As an interesting investigation....there are animal populations
[mammalian] where there is a less than 50/50 ratio, such as deer. Do
the ratios of births closely approximate the ratio of breeding males?

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.
To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.
The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.
This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).
In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

This might be true if the womyn select the surviving male at random.
This would be unlikely. The selfish gene would work towards producing
that single surviving male, AND producing as many female offspring as
possible.
In the end, fewer males are born, and they fit the criteria for
survival better.
As an interesting investigation....there are animal populations
[mammalian] where there is a less than 50/50 ratio, such as deer. Do
the ratios of births closely approximate the ratio of breeding males?

I decided to look for myself and found that the birth gender ratio for
deer in Alberta is 50/50, and that the male/female gender ratio by
three years of age is around 35/100....so even in a population where
few males breed and most females breed....the birth ratios are still
50/50....interestly.

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[boikat]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% =

billions of

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.
To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.
The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.
This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).
In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

This might be true if the womyn select the surviving male at random.
This would be unlikely. The selfish gene would work towards producing
that single surviving male, AND producing as many female offspring as
possible.
In the end, fewer males are born, and they fit the criteria for
survival better.
As an interesting investigation....there are animal populations
[mammalian] where there is a less than 50/50 ratio, such as deer. Do
the ratios of births closely approximate the ratio of breeding males?

I decided to look for myself and found that the birth gender ratio for
deer in Alberta is 50/50, and that the male/female gender ratio by
three years of age is around 35/100....so even in a population where
few males breed and most females breed....the birth ratios are still
50/50....interestly.

I have no idea why, but for some reason, "long range target duck" jumped to
mind:

http://www.metalorchids.com/artists-detail-works-detail.php?currentid=15&workid=264&artistid=11

Boikat

[Dunc Harris]

Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.

There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

For a good explanation see W.D. Hamilton's 1967 paper Extraordinary sex
ratios in Science 156(774):477-88.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6021675&query_hl=3
I'd also be very surprised if Dawkins hasn't used it as an example,
though where I don't know.

If you're really looking for it, the same explanation was used by
Darwin in the first edition of TOS, but dropped from later editions
because he wasn't sure about it. The 1:1 sex ratio is known as
Fisherian sex ratio after Ronald Fisher, who wrote about it in The
Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Though it wasn't his idea, but
one that was banded around the scientific community at the time, but
generally attributed to Fisher because of his importance to TOE.

The explanation that an organism should work to the favour of the
group, group selection was dismissed in the 1960s, so that's more to
read there.

Dunc

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.
To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.
The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.
This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).
In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

Post by Ken Shackleton
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Post by Dunc Harris
For a good explanation see W.D. Hamilton's 1967 paper Extraordinary sex
ratios in Science 156(774):477-88.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6021675&query_hl=3
I'd also be very surprised if Dawkins hasn't used it as an example,
though where I don't know.
If you're really looking for it, the same explanation was used by
Darwin in the first edition of TOS, but dropped from later editions
because he wasn't sure about it. The 1:1 sex ratio is known as
Fisherian sex ratio after Ronald Fisher, who wrote about it in The
Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Though it wasn't his idea, but
one that was banded around the scientific community at the time, but
generally attributed to Fisher because of his importance to TOE.
The explanation that an organism should work to the favour of the
group, group selection was dismissed in the 1960s, so that's more to
read there.
Dunc

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.
To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.
The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.
This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).
In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

Post by Ken Shackleton
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[Noone Inparticular]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Well. There is development as well, where embryonic genes are
expressed. Any differences in in utero survivability based on sex would
apply. As it happens more boys are born than girls, but more girls
survive childhood than boys.

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
For a good explanation see W.D. Hamilton's 1967 paper Extraordinary sex
ratios in Science 156(774):477-88.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6021675&query_hl=3
I'd also be very surprised if Dawkins hasn't used it as an example,
though where I don't know.
If you're really looking for it, the same explanation was used by
Darwin in the first edition of TOS, but dropped from later editions
because he wasn't sure about it. The 1:1 sex ratio is known as
Fisherian sex ratio after Ronald Fisher, who wrote about it in The
Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Though it wasn't his idea, but
one that was banded around the scientific community at the time, but
generally attributed to Fisher because of his importance to TOE.
The explanation that an organism should work to the favour of the
group, group selection was dismissed in the 1960s, so that's more to
read there.
Dunc

Post by ***@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.

The point wasn't directed toward culling but toward the selection
value of producing the males in the first place. Even so, your
argument actually fails.
To make it clear, if the steady state of the population is 1000
individuals, with only 1 male produced per generation, here's
what happens.
The male offspring will contribute 50% of it's genes to each
and every member of the next generation or 50% or the total
population gene pool. Any particular female offspring will
in general contribute 50% to a single offspring (on average,
steady state population assumption) and that's 50% of 0.1%
or 1/2000th of the next generation's gene pool.
This "advantage" in the male, coupled with basic "selfish gene"
logic makes it clear that there is an evolutionary advantage
to being the rarer gender. (presuming each gender has enough
reproductive capacity to maintain the steady state population).
In the culling scenario, if 2000 offspring were produced and
1000 were male with only one male being allowed to survive,
you get a 0.1 % chance to pass on 50% to the next generation
by producing a male which equals 1/2000th which is the same
as if the offspring is a female. Thus, culling doesn't change
the "advantage" of being a particular gender if the culling
is random. It is an advantage to be the rarer gender.

Post by Ken Shackleton
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Well. There is development as well, where embryonic genes are
expressed. Any differences in in utero survivability based on sex would
apply. As it happens more boys are born than girls, but more girls
survive childhood than boys.

I think you mean girls survive at a higher rate than boys. ISTR
that this doesn't totally offset the higher birth rate for boys.

--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant

[Noone Inparticular]

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Well. There is development as well, where embryonic genes are
expressed. Any differences in in utero survivability based on sex would
apply. As it happens more boys are born than girls, but more girls
survive childhood than boys.

I think you mean girls survive at a higher rate than boys.

um....isn't that what I said? Let's see; "As it happens more boys are
born than girls, but more girls survive childhood than boys."

I'm confused.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
ISTR
that this doesn't totally offset the higher birth rate for boys.

OK, now I'm really confused. How is this different than what I said?

Post by Jeffrey Turner
--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant

[Bob Casanova]

On 16 Sep 2005 09:37:04 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Noone Inparticular"

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Well. There is development as well, where embryonic genes are
expressed. Any differences in in utero survivability based on sex would
apply. As it happens more boys are born than girls, but more girls
survive childhood than boys.

I think you mean girls survive at a higher rate than boys.

um....isn't that what I said?

Not quite.

Post by Noone Inparticular
Let's see; "As it happens more boys are
born than girls, but more girls survive childhood than boys."
I'm confused.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
ISTR
that this doesn't totally offset the higher birth rate for boys.

OK, now I'm really confused. How is this different than what I said?

You said that *more* girls (absolute number) survived than
boys. He was pointing out (and I have no idea if this is
actually true) that although a greater *percentage* of girls
survived than boys, the absolute number of surviving boys is
greater than the absolute number of surviving girls, due to
the face that the differential survival rate doesn't quite
offset the greater number of male births.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[floyd]

Post by Bob Casanova
On 16 Sep 2005 09:37:04 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Noone Inparticular"

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Well. There is development as well, where embryonic genes are
expressed. Any differences in in utero survivability based on sex would
apply. As it happens more boys are born than girls, but more girls
survive childhood than boys.

I think you mean girls survive at a higher rate than boys.

um....isn't that what I said?

Not quite.

Post by Noone Inparticular
Let's see; "As it happens more boys are
born than girls, but more girls survive childhood than boys."
I'm confused.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
ISTR
that this doesn't totally offset the higher birth rate for boys.

OK, now I'm really confused. How is this different than what I said?

You said that *more* girls (absolute number) survived than
boys. He was pointing out (and I have no idea if this is
actually true) that although a greater *percentage* of girls
survived than boys, the absolute number of surviving boys is
greater than the absolute number of surviving girls, due to
the face that the differential survival rate doesn't quite
offset the greater number of male births.
--
Bob C.

I interpreted it to mean "a higher proportion (or a greater absolute
number) of girls survive childhood than the proportion (or number) of
girls who survive boys". I laughed.


IIRC, among humans, male births are about 49% and females about 47%
(the remaining 4% are "intersexed" and have neither functional testes
nor functional ovaries) but the slightly higher infant and childhood
mortality among males makes the sex ratio more or less equal by young
adulthood (although migration in early adulthood causes localised
imbalances).

[dkomo]

Post by floyd

Post by Bob Casanova
On 16 Sep 2005 09:37:04 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Noone Inparticular"

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Noone Inparticular

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by Dunc Harris
Yeah, what he said. All things equal, evolution favours the less
common sex.
There is also the issue of there having to evolve a biological
mechanism to produce offspring in a different sex ratio.

That is a point that had not considered....since the testes create
sperm by dividing existing DNA, the resulting sperm would be 50/50 X/Y
by default; so unless the X sperm were more fit, the birth ratio would
still be 50/50 no matter what the survival ratio happens to be.

Well. There is development as well, where embryonic genes are
expressed. Any differences in in utero survivability based on sex would
apply. As it happens more boys are born than girls, but more girls
survive childhood than boys.

I think you mean girls survive at a higher rate than boys.

um....isn't that what I said?

Not quite.

Post by Noone Inparticular
Let's see; "As it happens more boys are
born than girls, but more girls survive childhood than boys."
I'm confused.

Post by Jeffrey Turner
ISTR
that this doesn't totally offset the higher birth rate for boys.

OK, now I'm really confused. How is this different than what I said?

You said that *more* girls (absolute number) survived than
boys. He was pointing out (and I have no idea if this is
actually true) that although a greater *percentage* of girls
survived than boys, the absolute number of surviving boys is
greater than the absolute number of surviving girls, due to
the face that the differential survival rate doesn't quite
offset the greater number of male births.
--
Bob C.

I interpreted it to mean "a higher proportion (or a greater absolute
number) of girls survive childhood than the proportion (or number) of
girls who survive boys". I laughed.
IIRC, among humans, male births are about 49% and females about 47%
(the remaining 4% are "intersexed" and have neither functional testes
nor functional ovaries) but the slightly higher infant and childhood
mortality among males makes the sex ratio more or less equal by young
adulthood (although migration in early adulthood causes localised
imbalances).

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/

click on the link "Sex Ratios - males per females"


--***@cris.com

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

I would further predict that those surviving males would also have
exactly the traits that the womyn select for in their sperm-donating
males, whatever those traits may be.

[dkomo]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

Admittedly, the process by which natural selection balances the sex
ratio is not easy to understand and a bit paradoxical. Your argument
seems to be sound, and yet it doesn't reach the correct conclusion, as
shown by the following counterexample.

It's a known fact that male deer have considerably higher mortality than
female deer. They are prized for their antlers and are shot in higher
numbers by hunters. They also have more stressful lives because of the
competition for females with other males. At any given time there will
be a higher number of females than males in a deer population. Yet this
doesn't lead to more female deer born than male, as your argument would
imply. After all, the male deer are "culled" just like the male humans
were. Rather, more male deer are born in order to take advantage of the
relative scarcity of males in the population, even though a male has a
higher mortality rate.

A similar example is that in human populations the ratio in the number
of male children born to female is 51/49 due to the higher mortality
rate in male embryos and children, and due to the many other factors
that tend to reduce the male population such committing more violence,
getting killed in war, being in high risk occupations, etc. In general,
testosterone tends to produce behavior in males that leads to more
fatalities. And natural selection compensates for this in the birth ratios.


--***@cris.com

[Ken Shackleton]

Post by dkomo

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

Admittedly, the process by which natural selection balances the sex
ratio is not easy to understand and a bit paradoxical. Your argument
seems to be sound, and yet it doesn't reach the correct conclusion, as
shown by the following counterexample.
It's a known fact that male deer have considerably higher mortality than
female deer. They are prized for their antlers and are shot in higher
numbers by hunters. They also have more stressful lives because of the
competition for females with other males. At any given time there will
be a higher number of females than males in a deer population. Yet this
doesn't lead to more female deer born than male, as your argument would
imply. After all, the male deer are "culled" just like the male humans
were. Rather, more male deer are born in order to take advantage of the
relative scarcity of males in the population, even though a male has a
higher mortality rate.
A similar example is that in human populations the ratio in the number
of male children born to female is 51/49 due to the higher mortality
rate in male embryos and children, and due to the many other factors
that tend to reduce the male population such committing more violence,
getting killed in war, being in high risk occupations, etc. In general,
testosterone tends to produce behavior in males that leads to more
fatalities. And natural selection compensates for this in the birth ratios.

This is interesting, and it does demonstrate to me that the
interactions of the environment are very complex. Basically though, if
I understand this correctly; even though fewer males survive to breed,
it is a very valuable position to be in. Therefore, it is worth the
effort to sire extra males that will not breed in order to increase
your chances of producing the one male that will breed.

Does that sum it up?

[Nancy Norton]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

Admittedly, the process by which natural selection balances the sex
ratio is not easy to understand and a bit paradoxical. Your argument
seems to be sound, and yet it doesn't reach the correct conclusion, as
shown by the following counterexample.
It's a known fact that male deer have considerably higher mortality than
female deer. They are prized for their antlers and are shot in higher
numbers by hunters. They also have more stressful lives because of the
competition for females with other males. At any given time there will
be a higher number of females than males in a deer population. Yet this
doesn't lead to more female deer born than male, as your argument would
imply. After all, the male deer are "culled" just like the male humans
were. Rather, more male deer are born in order to take advantage of the
relative scarcity of males in the population, even though a male has a
higher mortality rate.
A similar example is that in human populations the ratio in the number
of male children born to female is 51/49 due to the higher mortality
rate in male embryos and children, and due to the many other factors
that tend to reduce the male population such committing more violence,
getting killed in war, being in high risk occupations, etc. In general,
testosterone tends to produce behavior in males that leads to more
fatalities. And natural selection compensates for this in the birth ratios.

This is interesting, and it does demonstrate to me that the
interactions of the environment are very complex. Basically though, if
I understand this correctly; even though fewer males survive to breed,
it is a very valuable position to be in. Therefore, it is worth the
effort to sire extra males that will not breed in order to increase
your chances of producing the one male that will breed.
Does that sum it up?

I vaguely remember hearing about someone who studied the frequency of
male and female babies born to high and low status females in a colony
of baboons (I think it was baboons, it might have been a different
primate). If I remember correctly, low status females had a higher
incidence of female offspring where high status females had a higher
incidence of male offspring. I think the researchers were hypothesizing
that the higher stress hormones in the low status females may have been
the influencing factor. Anyway, in a group where the offspring tend to
get their status from their mothers and where only the higher status
males get to mate (but essentially all females get to mate), this shift
in the ratio of male to female births would make sense in terms of
maximizing the number of descendants for both high and low status females.

[dkomo]

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Ken Shackleton

Post by dkomo

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I know the OP is a troll and replies are supposed to be humorous, but
I'm more interested in the evolution aspects.
That reason why there is such a close balance in numbers between males
and females even though having so many males appears superfluous is
because of natural selection. If, for example, there is a higher number
of males in the population, there is a selective advantage in producing
more females, because on the average a couple producing a female child
will have more heirs in future generations. And vice versa, if there is
a higher number of females, there will be selection pressure on genes
that lead to more males being born. So the net effect is that over time
natural selection leads to a close 50-50 balance between males and females.
If you artificially limit the number of males in the population to say,
10% of the number of females, that will put intense selection pressure
on producing male children because the average male child will be able
to have many more descendents than the average female child. What will
then happen is that more and more male children will begin to be born
and fewer female children.
In order to counterbalance this effect of natural selection, these
additional male children will have to killed be off through abortion or
infanticide, or other means such as artificial wars or combat to the
death. This will even worsen the problem. With fewer and fewer female
children being born, and more and more male children being killed off,
the entire population will undergo a severe decline.
The moral of this story is: don't f**k with mother nature. Male numbers
are what they are for a good reason.

The selection pressures that exist in our present environment do ensure
that the ratio of male/female is 50/50; however, if the rules change,
then all bets are off.
There is nothing intrinsic in the 50/50 ratio that would cause it to be
maintained in a drastically different environment where males were
culled from the population. If I am one of the surviving males left to
procreate, then my genes will pass on in my female progeny as well as
my surviving male progeny.
If the world is taken over by womyn, and they are bent on destroying
all males except for those that are required for procreation; then I
would have better reproductive success if my children are mostly
daughters. I can give only a finite number of sperm to the cause, and
if most of them are Y and are then culled before they can reproduce,
then I lose.
If the new environment only allowed for one reproductive male per
thousand womyn....then my sperm count will be most efficient
[reproductively fit] if it is one Y per thousand X.
Over the long run, I would predict that the breeding males in this
world would develop a sperm count equal to that of the surviving
population ratio.

Admittedly, the process by which natural selection balances the sex
ratio is not easy to understand and a bit paradoxical. Your argument
seems to be sound, and yet it doesn't reach the correct conclusion, as
shown by the following counterexample.
It's a known fact that male deer have considerably higher mortality than
female deer. They are prized for their antlers and are shot in higher
numbers by hunters. They also have more stressful lives because of the
competition for females with other males. At any given time there will
be a higher number of females than males in a deer population. Yet this
doesn't lead to more female deer born than male, as your argument would
imply. After all, the male deer are "culled" just like the male humans
were. Rather, more male deer are born in order to take advantage of the
relative scarcity of males in the population, even though a male has a
higher mortality rate.
A similar example is that in human populations the ratio in the number
of male children born to female is 51/49 due to the higher mortality
rate in male embryos and children, and due to the many other factors
that tend to reduce the male population such committing more violence,
getting killed in war, being in high risk occupations, etc. In general,
testosterone tends to produce behavior in males that leads to more
fatalities. And natural selection compensates for this in the birth ratios.

This is interesting, and it does demonstrate to me that the
interactions of the environment are very complex. Basically though, if
I understand this correctly; even though fewer males survive to breed,
it is a very valuable position to be in. Therefore, it is worth the
effort to sire extra males that will not breed in order to increase
your chances of producing the one male that will breed.
Does that sum it up?

No. Didn't we just show elsewhere that culling has no effect on the
birth ratio? This is exactly what the empirical data on deer shows.
This is a case where there is no advantage to giving birth to males even
though there are many fewer males in the population.

--***@cris.com

[Robert Grumbine]

various things about biology, well-suited to talk.origins.
But folks, have you looked at the cross-posting?
alt.women.supremacy and alt.culture.warrior-women
for those who use an inept newsreader.

[boikat]

Post by Robert Grumbine
various things about biology, well-suited to talk.origins.
But folks, have you looked at the cross-posting?
alt.women.supremacy and alt.culture.warrior-women

Yes. And?

Post by Robert Grumbine
for those who use an inept newsreader.

Sort of makes you wonder who wanted to start a flame war where?

:P

Boikat

[AC]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200,

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

So when do the womyn start growing testes?

[Scooter the Mighty]

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200,

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

So when do the womyn start growing testes?

Or "testys", as they may prefer.

[Bob Casanova]

On 15 Sep 2005 15:39:02 GMT, the following appeared in

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:55 +0200,

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

So when do the womyn start growing testes?

This one already sounds a bit testy...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[u***@hotmail.com]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

[...]

It's... it's like a dream come true.

I'm afraid that if we have more than ten women per man, though, I'm
going to have to put some of mine on an "every other night" schedule.

Kermit

[The Last Conformist]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Trolls are supposed to be more fun than this.

[Lee Oswald Ving]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion,

No one asked.

How many Dianics does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

(Eyes flashing, red-faced reply), "That's not funny!"

[Bunjo]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

By the same trollish thinking since each "womyn" can have 20 children, we
don't need that many "womyn" either...

Bunjo

[Dale]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

Why do we need so many men? Errr.. so ugly chicks can have a chance at
getting laid?

But seriously, why do we need so many people in general? For that matter,
why do we need people? Why do we need this whole eukaryotic thing anyway?
Prokaryotes Uber Alles! Oh, wait...

And finally,

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to
each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called
monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required
for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will
be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will
have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be
of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea
there, Doctor.

[Ron O]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I'm not going to do the math, but it should be intuitive. In your
normal sexually reproducing species if the number of males falls below
a certain ratio the effective population size approaches the number of
males. The effective population size is the population that is
actually contributing to the genetics of the next generation. They
account for half the genetics of the population, but a lot fewer
individuals account for that half. Inbreeding would go way up and you
would be feeding a lot of females for less benefit to the genetic
diversity of your population.

Less genetic diversity, less ability to adapt to changing conditions,
less chance of long term survival of the species.

Ron Okimoto

[dkomo]

Post by Ron O

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I'm not going to do the math, but it should be intuitive. In your
normal sexually reproducing species if the number of males falls below
a certain ratio the effective population size approaches the number of
males. The effective population size is the population that is
actually contributing to the genetics of the next generation. They
account for half the genetics of the population, but a lot fewer
individuals account for that half. Inbreeding would go way up and you
would be feeding a lot of females for less benefit to the genetic
diversity of your population.
Less genetic diversity, less ability to adapt to changing conditions,
less chance of long term survival of the species.
Ron Okimoto

However, let us not forget that there are animal species where a few
dominant males sire almost all the offspring. Walruses, for example.
These species seem to do just fine.

Frankly, I'm having second thoughts about Fisher's sex ratio theory.
I'm wondering if it is not the equivalent of an urban legend in
evolutionary biology. I think what I wrote in my first post about the
sex ratio at birth becoming unbalanced in the mostly female society was
just plain wrong.

This is going to thrill all those Amazonian warrior women, lesbians,
harpies and assorted man-haters out there, but I now think that a
society consisting of 90% females and 10% males, where 90% of the males
are killed off before they reach sexual maturity is evolutionarily
stable, and the sex ratio at birth will remain close to 50/50.

To return such a society back to a normal balance between the sexes is
quite easy. Stop killing off the males, and the 50/50 birth ratio will
rebalance the male/female numbers within just several generations. This
happened, for example, in the former Soviet Union following WW II.
There was a severe shortage of men because so many had died fighting the
Germans. The next few generations restored the balance without any
change in the sex ratio at birth.


--***@cris.com

[Ron O]

Post by dkomo

Post by Ron O

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

I'm not going to do the math, but it should be intuitive. In your
normal sexually reproducing species if the number of males falls below
a certain ratio the effective population size approaches the number of
males. The effective population size is the population that is
actually contributing to the genetics of the next generation. They
account for half the genetics of the population, but a lot fewer
individuals account for that half. Inbreeding would go way up and you
would be feeding a lot of females for less benefit to the genetic
diversity of your population.
Less genetic diversity, less ability to adapt to changing conditions,
less chance of long term survival of the species.
Ron Okimoto

However, let us not forget that there are animal species where a few
dominant males sire almost all the offspring. Walruses, for example.
These species seem to do just fine.

There is a big difference. Just think, there are just as many males
born as females, but the males that sire most of the offspring are just
a limited subset of males. This is different from just truncation or
having fewer males to select from.

Post by dkomo
Frankly, I'm having second thoughts about Fisher's sex ratio theory.
I'm wondering if it is not the equivalent of an urban legend in
evolutionary biology. I think what I wrote in my first post about the
sex ratio at birth becoming unbalanced in the mostly female society was
just plain wrong.
This is going to thrill all those Amazonian warrior women, lesbians,
harpies and assorted man-haters out there, but I now think that a
society consisting of 90% females and 10% males, where 90% of the males
are killed off before they reach sexual maturity is evolutionarily
stable, and the sex ratio at birth will remain close to 50/50.

OK.

There is a skew in the male birth sex ratio, but it favors the males in
humans. As the population ages the skew favors females because more
males die.

Post by dkomo
To return such a society back to a normal balance between the sexes is
quite easy. Stop killing off the males, and the 50/50 birth ratio will
rebalance the male/female numbers within just several generations. This
happened, for example, in the former Soviet Union following WW II.
There was a severe shortage of men because so many had died fighting the
Germans. The next few generations restored the balance without any
change in the sex ratio at birth.

I don't know if the soviet example is a good one. Stalin had a habit
of decimating populations. In the starvation purges I haven't seen any
data claiming that women survived more than men.

In China they have the opposite problem of too many males due to
infanticide of daughters during the one child support period.

Ron Okimoto

[r norman]

Post by Ron O

Post by dkomo
Frankly, I'm having second thoughts about Fisher's sex ratio theory.
I'm wondering if it is not the equivalent of an urban legend in
evolutionary biology. I think what I wrote in my first post about the
sex ratio at birth becoming unbalanced in the mostly female society was
just plain wrong.
This is going to thrill all those Amazonian warrior women, lesbians,
harpies and assorted man-haters out there, but I now think that a
society consisting of 90% females and 10% males, where 90% of the males
are killed off before they reach sexual maturity is evolutionarily
stable, and the sex ratio at birth will remain close to 50/50.

OK.
There is a skew in the male birth sex ratio, but it favors the males in
humans. As the population ages the skew favors females because more
males die.

Post by dkomo
To return such a society back to a normal balance between the sexes is
quite easy. Stop killing off the males, and the 50/50 birth ratio will
rebalance the male/female numbers within just several generations. This
happened, for example, in the former Soviet Union following WW II.
There was a severe shortage of men because so many had died fighting the
Germans. The next few generations restored the balance without any
change in the sex ratio at birth.

I don't know if the soviet example is a good one. Stalin had a habit
of decimating populations. In the starvation purges I haven't seen any
data claiming that women survived more than men.
In China they have the opposite problem of too many males due to
infanticide of daughters during the one child support period.

This thread has a difficult history to read, so I don't know whether
this has already been covered. But I am sure you are aware that there
is a substantial literature in population genetics about sex ratios.
For example here are some teaching sites on the subject.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/sex_determination.htm

http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/summerwebpage/biol3520/EVOLsexratios.htm
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/biol106h/L21/L21_sex.html

There is, of course, a full technical literature. A most interesting
aspect is Sober's paper on "Sex Ratio Theory, Ancient and Modern: An
18th Century Debate about Intelligent Design and the Development of
Models in Evolutionary Theory" at

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/Sex%20Ratio%20Theory,%20A%20and%20M%20-%209%2005%20rev1.pdf

And Hamilton is, as always, involved
Hamilton, W. D.
Extraordinary sex ratios.
Science 156: 477 -488, (1967)

Of course, when you get to plants, you open a real can of worms.

The fact is that there are a lot of situations where a 1:1 ratio is
not found.

[Earle Jones]

Post by Janina Edison
In my opinion, males are truly obsolete creatures and there are far to
many male humans on Earth who eat the food, drink the water and use
the resources that belong tothe much more valuable WOMYN.
The great mother goddess created womyn to rule the Earth.Men are not
important, only for mating.And we really don't need 50% = billions of
men on Earth.5-10% men would be enough.
There is NO reason to waste precious food, water and air for so many
useless male creatures while more valuable womyn die.
The male human population MUST be greatly reduced, it's the only way
to guarantee human survival.

*
Janina? May I assume that you are of the female persuasion?

I agree with you -- men are no damn good! They use up resources --
primarily chasing women -- and contribute next to nothing. All of
mankind's woes can be laid at the doorstep of stupid males.

Notwithstanding Condaleeza Rice, look at that bunch of useless males
in Washington right now. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al -- all useless
warmongering males. Get rid of them!

I think the world would be a better place if women were in charge.
I am fortunate to live where both my two senators and my congressman
are all women. And I voted for them all.

A world of two billion women and about a hundred thousand males
sounds good to me. I would just hope I could be one of the males.

Love,

earle
*