rufio wrote:I've never seen proof of any kind that genetics has anything to do with sexual selection other than to restrict it (hopefully) to the same species. I have no idea what you might be referring to with "genetic opposites" or if they even exist. A gene is a gene is a gene. Either you have it or you don't. You don't "negative" or "opposite" genes.
If something's socially inherited (a meme) than it has to be either part of the unconscious culture or part of a conscious teaching proccess - and I can't see how either of those things would result from overpopulation. Of course, like everything else, it would be driven by random chance - but that's a really random chance, and if homosexuality were encouraged it would have to be in just the right situations and mediation or the population would end up dying out.
The supermodels are only part of the social conditioning, which influences people to choose parteners that look like the supermodels. That's what's unhealthy.... I'm not saying that's absolute by any means, but it's the only trend I can really see consistently at work here.
The class destinction only works if we know how many of those poorer children survive. It's probably safe to say that just about every planned child lives to reproduce, but you probably can't say the same for poorer children who go hungry or don't have a place to live, or don't get the medicine they need. But maybe there enough being made that it doesn't make a significant difference. Who knows? I wouldn't say that only poverty and stupidity leads to theft though - the very rich steal much more than petty criminals a lot of the time, and that doesn't go to keeping anyone "afloat". Plus, people who steal generally do it to buy alcohol, in my experience, which is actually deterimental to health.
And when you consider that the very rich generally don't have sex with the very poor, you might even break society up into its three classes before you start looking at where evolution is taking us. We have, in America, several destinct populations living right necxt to each other that do their best to have nothing to do with one another. But I think that overall in all of these circumstances, environment plays a bigger role - we are all predisposed to die if we don't eat, don't get proper medical care, etc.
Genetic opposites, no. But there are genes that don't express themselves until certain conditions arise. For example, Himilayan bunnies turn white in the snow, and black in the spring. Their genes react to a cold sensor (if you hold an ice pack on them, they will also change - when the new fur grows.) The frogs that change gender do so only if not enough of one gender is around - to balance out the gender distribution of the population. In a similar way, I was wondering if celibacy or homosexuality could be triggered in certain people by overpopulation.
I don't entirely subscribe to the theory of memes, although it is interesting. It eliminates the ability to chose and have free will (I am borrowing a religious term here) which I do believe humans have. It almost implies predetermination in every action and leaves no responsibility to self-improvement and individual thought.
As far as I can tell, people don't chose partners that look like supermodels. They're neat to look at on T.V., and I know men who think so! But that doesn't mean they are looking for the exact same qualities in a sexual mate. As far as I gather from my psych./sociology majoring roomate, they look for a certain amount of symmetry, a waist - to - hip - ratio, and exoticism (ex: blondes.)
About class distinction: In a wealthy and benevolent society, the poor are supported by that society (ex: America.) That way, the children live. But if such society were eliminated, I don't know if many of these children could support themselves. So yes, they are surviving and reproducing, but probably would not be were it not for the wide availability of well paying low skill jobs in America (by well paying, I mean able to pay for food and rent - historically this would have made a man wealthy.) And by social programs (help - willing or unwilling - given by other members of the society.)
