Human females are at a disadvantage in a male-competitive environment. Apart from being physically weaker than their male counterparts, they are also hamstrung with monthly menstruation: "A normal menstrual cycle occurs every 21-35 days and lasts for 2-5 days. The hormonal and uterine changes are quite complex, and ultimately lead to the preparation of the uterus to accept a pregnancy. If conception does not take place, the uterine lining sheds, in the form of your period". The biological alternative is the constant production of dead babies, the result of unconceived fetuses. Not particularly efficient nor desirable in the design of a successful species. Menstruation is still messy but the genes don't really care about personal inconvenience. As long as there is a million-year tried-and-tested way to ensure a viable reproductive strategy then the current model is fine.
So, the human female is (mostly) available permanently to accept spermatozoa before she is likely to die of disease or be eaten by a bear. The human male is (mostly) available permanently to provide said spermatozoa before any similar aforementioned likely demise. The reproductive plumbing necessities are therefore in place.
But the female is hamstrung with a massive hormonal shitstorm when conception does take place. Incapacitated and vulnerable, human civilised society is predicated on the concept of family. Males do not suffer similar disadvantages so they assume a role of "protector and provider" to ensure the well-being of their offspring and the mother of their offspring. This programming has been enshrined over thousands of years of pain and suffering, of surviving to pass on the genes of a species doomed to die individually. It is supported by all civilisation's institutions; Religion, Government, Media and Science in the form of technical fixes, sexual encouragement, State handouts and Religious dogma ("Go forth and multiply in the name of our Lord").
Moreover, mental or physical violence usually follows any enlightened soul who dares not comply with the demands of the genes that are enshrined by God's Will. For example: Educated women who choose a career over motherhood who are despised by the matriarchs as "selfish"?; the American Bible-Belt hatred of the concept of abortion despite their rancid love of death-dealing weapons?; The Catholic Rule against contraception despite the collective poverty it brings to everyone in a community of scarce resources?; The Islamic cultural tendency to view females as personal baby-making machines for the (male) offspring of their husbands?; Or the plain and simple fact that very few female souls in the world question their need to have babies irrespective of cost or consequence?
In fact, every modern, so-called intelligent race on planet Earth absolutely defends the fact that the human race is now 7 billion strong and growing exponentially. Nary a one seems to be able to imagine an Earth choked with the effluence of a greedy primate, all other species extinct. It is never the fault of our own species' mindless baby-making activities. No. It is the fault of governments, scientists, global warming, aid workers, the rich bastards, everyone else except the members of our species who willfully drop more babies into being regardless of any claim to personal responsibility. It can't be the fact that we are just still mindless, tribal monkeys. Can it?
Here is an extract from Sheri Tepper's sci-fi novel Sideshow. Tepper is a female writer who has her eye on the whole spectrum of human folly. On the subject of human procreation she has one of her characters, an Enforcer dedicated to balancing problems in a new world of scarce resources, say to one of his compatriots:
. . . so he gave her the benefit of his wider experience. "You heard him talking about Earth. It was the same then. Telling people going hungry has never worked. When I stared out as Enforcer, I tried preaching good sense. I've said things like, 'Momma, you know you can only get two babies through the dry season, so why did you have three, or five, or seven,' and they tell me, 'They're here now! They've got to eat!' Or they say, 'God will provide.' But, after they say their god will provide, it's their neighbours they will beg from, the ones who still have food because they've only one or two children. And, often as not, the neighbours give them food and both families watch their children starve, tears all down their faces, never once admitting they're responsible for it themselves. Everybody's possessed by the notion his own children are entitled to life, no matter what happens to other people's".Eloquently put as a parable. Now multiply that by a billion or so. Tackle the problem from a planetary perspective regardless of countries, cultures, tribes.
As a primate species we see that every adult has the ability to reproduce annually and continually well into senescence. The plumbing engineered by our genes is quite robust! The world's people accept readily that their favourite religious, governmental and media institutions actively promote their reproduction on an unlimited scale. The problem that haunts a relatively, healthy portion of an intelligent species at the top of its planetary food chain is this: at what point do we actively think about the outcome?
It is not popular with the masses but there is a good case that intelligence can be inherited. If so, the corollary is true: stupidity is also inherited, and in great numbers. There is also a case that, today, as many people are alive that ever died throughout history. Whether or not this technically true, the following graph would give any intelligent member of the human race pause for thought . . .
So, where do we, as intelligent monkeys, go from here?
No comments:
Post a Comment