Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 18:06:03
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 16:55:22
One problem is defining natural. If natural is literally defined, it is natural for humans to build skyscrapers, and to knock them down. Even if "natural" is used as a term of art that can mean "not anthropocentric," colloquial representations of what is considered "natural" often fall short of summarizing either the available science or popular assumptions about what is natural. If we are to be guided by what has occured in nature, we have much more to consider beyond one tooth structure and one suggested sexual economy.
Some of our ancestors must've eaten meat, as leading scholars have suggested based on analysis of tooth structure. But there were some vegetarians way back in the family tree, too. Australopithecus africanus teeth provide evidence of vegetarianism. Some scholars suggest our male Australo-Africanus ancestors might have been more sexually domineering toward females, and females more sexually submissive than those of other hominid species, as is evidenced by gender-specific size differences. Nobody I know of offers that "it is natural for vegetarians to be sexually domineering" though.
Australo-Africanus society might have given way to more promiscuous hominid societies where males demonstrated toolmaking and social skills to vie for female privilages. Competition for breeding rights might have played out in development of weapon-making and group-hunting skills that led to a more carnivorous culture in which females selected males more likely to provide for offspring and to assist offspring in learning increasingly complex survival skills.
Larger male primates are also associated with polygomous cultures, where size gives males advantages against other males who compete for access to females that do not mate for life, whereas males and females of monogomous primate species are more often similar in size.
Whatever might be the flaws of the carnivoury/sexual aggression comparison in the context of guidelines for this forum, it is not an argument scholars of evolutionary science widely offer and I don't know of any evidence the argument finds much place in folklore.
poster:so
thread:498173
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/503827.html