Why we Bald and If we did find the cure

[bballer290]

Im not sure if I agree with that there is no reason why we bald. I think there is a reason, it wouldn't just happen out of nothing. Maybe it was an adaptation thing a million years ago or something like that...but I think there is a reason why we bald....its just that reason does not apply to our species in today's world...

 

[epictetus]

Keeping the population in check is group selection, something that is thoroughly debunked by population geneticists.

You can read more here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/

 

[CaptainForehead]

Again, all the armchair biologists fail to explain why baldness is not a burden for black males

I dont know about that...the following guy might be pissed if he goes bald.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_N17YT07pG8E/S ... h/war2.jpg

 

[CaptainForehead]

Remember that women only started to choose their sexual partners by their own choice in the West a couple of centuries ago.

Females have been choosing breeding partners since the dawn of time. Its just that in recent times, they have started to prefer non-bald dudes.

 

[bballer290]

But the amount of breeding partners for females were very few in the beginning of mankind, so those females had no choice but to mate with whoever they could...so they probably didnt care that much if the guy was bald or fat or ugly. Speed up the clock now nd females have way more choices for breeding partners...so this is one obvious reason as why they prefer non-bald men to bald men...because there are more non-bald men to mate with...simple math.... :dunno:

 

[CaptainForehead]

.so they probably didnt care that much if the guy was bald or fat

Think about what being fat would signify 5000 years ago.

 

[bballer290]

Either way bald men are screwed.....Im still suprised to this day my bald dad got with my mom...amd im not joking

 

[s.a.f]

Remember that women only started to choose their sexual partners by their own choice in the West a couple of centuries ago.

Females have been choosing breeding partners since the dawn of time. Its just that in recent times, they have started to prefer non-bald dudes.

No they have'nt mate,
Do you think that Cavemen or other primative era's in human civilisation such as the vikings ect had the same courtships as today. Of course not, back then a man would take whatever women he wanted aslong as he had the power to do so. Do you think that these powerful kings and tribal leaders had beautiful young women falling for their ugly fat old asses? Young women would be married off against their will or would only choose a man who could offer them security and protection regardless of what he looked like. Henry the VIII was no Zac Efron.

Even right now for a huge % of the population on earth there are arranged marriages. Where families get together and pair up their offspring with dowries ect changing hands and the women have no say in the matter.
Its only in the last century that women have been able to have proper careers and earn the same kind of money men do so they can support themselves without the help of a husband.

 

[CaptainForehead]

would only choose a man who could offer them security and protection regardless of what he looked like..

Correct, I didnt say females have been choosing mates based on aesthetics, I just said females have been choosing breeding partners.

Actually depending on the species, females also chose breeding partners based purely on aesthetics, while they were attached to protector types.. Essentially, there have been a lot of men raising kids not fathered by them, and of which they have no idea.

The cheating level of a species can be estimated by looking at the testicle size of males. Apparently most of the sperm are not for impregnation but for fighting foreign sperm. Humans lie in the middle of the spectrum. Women are not total sl*ts, but not angels either.

 

[bigentries]

Correct, I didnt say females have been choosing mates based on aesthetics, I just said females have been choosing breeding partners.

Actually depending on the species, females also chose breeding partners based purely on aesthetics, while they were attached to protector types.. Essentially, there have been a lot of men raising kids not fathered by them, and of which they have no idea.

The cheating level of a species can be estimated by looking at the testicle size of males. Apparently most of the sperm are not for impregnation but for fighting foreign sperm. Humans lie in the middle of the spectrum. Women are not total sl*ts, but not angels either.

That's not the case of most mammals, some birds do have a very egalitarian courtship systems, but most mammals reproduce in ways that resemble more a rape act than a conscious choice by the partners

The problem is that teachers need to explain sexual selection to kids in ways that resembles the current dating scene of the middle class in the Western World, when in reality reproduction in animals, and probably in uncivilized humans, is a brutal system of subjugation where females are left with no other choice than to mate with the most powerful males

 

[s.a.f]

The problem is that teachers need to explain sexual selection to kids in ways that resembles the current dating scene of the middle class in the Western World, when in reality reproduction in animals, and probably in uncivilized humans, is a brutal system of subjugation where females are left with no other choice than to mate with the most powerful males

Why do teachers need to explain sexual selection? Its pretty much a subconcious descision. Its not a coincidence that many of the most powerful males will have the best genetics anyway.

 

[bballer290]

Why don't teachers teach everyone that baldness is something that a person cannot control to all the nw1 bastards out there!!