A Species Out of Balance?

Is the human species in balance? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
From the time I first studied biology in junior high, I wondered why sexual reproduction became necessary in nature. Asexuality is perfectly adequate for one-celled creatures. Worms can get by, having both male and female organs. Why do higher-evolved creatures require a sexual distinction? Two creatures of opposite gender have to merge genetic material and then a "compromise" fetus is created. Charles Darwin saw a great significance in sex, but he mostly focused on the posturing of males to establish dominance over females. His theory was that males primarily serve a protective function and females search out the strongest mate.

Looking at the whole animal kingdom and not just select examples, Darwin's conjecture was woefully inadequate. There are species where males are an accessory -- a species of fish where the male is dwarfed by the female and is nothing but a sperm-donating attachment to her body. We also have sea horses, where the males are the caring nurturers. Even with wolves, females can outsize the males and be dominant. The gender differences don't hold consistently across species with regard to size, dominance, colors, aggressive behavior or other criteria. With Westernized humans, the females wear bright colors. With birds, the males wear the bright feathers and the females wear brown. With insects, the sex roles are turned on their head completely.

POLARIZATION OF THE SEXES

My own theory is that sexes represent some kind of fundamental, universal power struggle -- some type of balance that must be carefully struck. When the power goes out of balance, you have 'species out of balance'. In such cases, you will have extreme sexual dimorphism. Dimorphism is a physical difference between adult male and adult female of the same species. The physical attributes under consideration are not the genitalia but rather the secondary sexual characteristics. Secondary sexual characteristics include such non-genital attributes as body size, color of fur, or presence of antlers. In mammals, there are many examples -- certainly including humans. With bovine animals, the antlered males can be twice as big as the female. With a man and woman, brother and sister born to the same parents, the male can be two heads taller and weigh half again as much as his sister. The gender imbalance introduces odd results in nature:

• Difficulty in mating. Cows can suffer fractures and broken bones when a giant bull tries to mount a small yearling
• Increased mortality in birthing. Both mother and fetus are at risk if the mother is birthing an overly large offspring
• Sterility and homosexuality -- Increased risk of sperm/egg incompatibility; behavioral ambiguity due to extreme body differences

SEX AND SPECIATION

My own conjecture is that when the male and female become too different, the species itself is at risk. A few things may happen, according to this theory: feminine males may pair with hyper-feminine females to create a new species. Masculine females may pair with hyper-masculine males to create a new species. One can look at cats and dogs -- both carnivores that probably evolved from a ferret-like animal. The cleaving into two species probably happened with emergence of canine males and feline females that went their separate ways. There are other possibilities. The species could go completely extinct, leaving no surviving child species. The species might actually survive indefinitely, but as a static, non-evolving species – because sexual competition (and thus variety) is sharply reduced. The species with healthy "dynamism" is one in which the male and female are different, but the difference is one of minor style and not major substance. Thus, side by side -- the sexes should closely resemble each other. It is possible in nature for male to overwhelm the female and likewise possible for female to overwhelm the male. In both cases, we have dismal, species-stifling results.

MALE DOMINATION

The greatest examples of male domination in mammals are the bovine animals such as cattle. They actually form a patriarchal "society" where a bull is surrounded by a harem of females. In such societies, the main goal is for males to express dominance over passive females and male challengers. The very fact that bovine evolution sacrificed opposable digits for a clumsy hoof says all we need to know about this wayward direction. The species should be not about domination of a sex.

FEMALE DOMINATION

Hymenoptera (social) insects are the best example of this. A queen evolved to be served by sterile female workers and 'serviced' by males. She has no competition whatever, and lolls about to create larva for the colony. Wolves and hyenas have matriarchies where females will summarily kill the pups of a rival female. In both these cases, the male role has been subdued and the resultant society lacks competition or dynamism. The species cited here are certainly surviving. But they survive as the meat that we butcher, or insects that we spray with insecticide and exploit for honey. Wolves are near extinction for all their effort.

The animal with the greatest evolution potential is the animal that keeps the sexes balanced. They need not be the same of course; “vive la 5%” as they said in Adam’s Rib. But the sexes should work in harmony, and not be at odds with each other. Can a woman support her family? Can a man be a caring nurturer? The answers to these questions may help one determine how he or she figures in the gender balance. There’s nothing at stake, except for the species itself.

© 2006 blogSpotter.