natural selection

so go cry out your questions to the void,
and the void throw you your answers

I wonder how this works. Intuitively, it would make sense from a mating success perspective, but would it make sense if you extend it to other types of success? Why would 'other types of success' be needed? I always thought because you dont just need to achive mating success but you need to ensure the kids survive, etc. But then most animals would need much lower PI. In that case why would 'other types of success' be needed? You would have to survive yourself too. I can see why this would make sense, though it wouldnt always have to be the case, necessarily.

You could argue either way on this. Maybe thats why they says EP is just 'just so stories'


  1. Interesting read.
    Look at it this way, around most economies in the world, the poorer sections of society have the highest fertility rates. Doesn't the chances of success for children born in a disadvantaged section decrease.

    But as you said it, the argument can go either way.

  2. Prometheus_Unbound, i think you are talking about something different. low socio economic status i would think would be more related to nurture than than to nature, the old nature versus nurture debate, whereas here i think they are talkimng more about the genetic inheritence

  3. The study makes sense though the explanation therein doesn't. Given that the male specifies the sex, an alpha-male would produce virile male offspring but female offspring with more masculine traits and hence, less fertile reproductive systems. I missed your extrapolation, though...