posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Jamesprototype
Would this mean that males were "designed" to mate then move on ?
Not completely. Its all about maximal survival stratagies for getting your genes into the next generation, and (remembering that the overwhelming
vast majority of human evolution took place in 'primitive' hunter gatherer societies) a father that does not stay to help the mother and child has a
less likely chance of that child surviving. This is counterbalanced by the increased number of children.
the prospective mother who has a child with a father that doesnt stay around has a less likely chance of passing the genes to the next generation as
well (and also put them out of having another child with a good father for along time), so the survival strategy is to take the time to check if the
father will stick around.
Because of this, the best strategy for the male is to *appear* to want to stay around, but later move on to another female. The female also has the
counter strategy of finding a male that will stick around, but actually getting pregnant by a male with 'better' genes. Males counter this by
killing illegitimate children and then getting the female pregnant again.
Its all quite complex with strategies and counter strategies.
I recall reading a few years back that there is a value about 1.2, which describes the number of women a man optimally tries to be with for maximal
gene transmission to the next generation. One female, a "banker", to give that child a chance of surviving, but also try to get other females
Its all about the "selfish" genes anyway, its not about the people.
edit - found a random reference for that 1.2 number...
if you graph mammals logarithmically, with the size ratio of males to females on one axis and the harem size on the other, it forms a straight
line. We humans have a natural harem size of 1.2 women per man
edit on 20-6-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)