Can Human Cultural Influences be Causing the "Disappearing Male?"
Put this post in the Total Conjecture File. A story about the decline in male fertility and increasing birth defects among male babies got me to wondering: Is it possible that human biological evolution can be impacted by the changes in perception caused by radically evolving cultural trends? From the story:
Are males becoming an endangered species? That's the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.As the story points out, environmental factors may have a part in this. But what if something else is also at play, something less easy to measure and quantify?
More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette's syndrome, among other disorders. Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man's sperm is declining, according to some studies.
But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.
Modern cultural views that devalue the importance of males have become prominent at the same time these disturbing biological phenomena have taken place. Men are no longer looked upon as necessary protectors and providers. We are now told that fathers aren't all that important in raising healthy children. Indeed, some reproductive technologies point to the day when men won't even be necessary as sperm donors for reproduction. As the old feminist saying had it, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
What if our species has taken that thought to heart? Can these cultural evolvements (if you will) be stimulating human psychological intentionality and changes in perception that impact our biology? I have no idea, but consider this: Human beings have an astonishing power to create our own reality. And we know that the unconscious is very powerful with the ability to alter our thoughts, emotions, and perceptions--even our biology--impacting our lives in profound ways. Is it out of the question that our collective ideas and cultural desires could have the power to materially impact our species' biological future?Like I said, this is pure conjecture. But I don't think the thought is beyond the pale.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:25 PM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Perhaps one way to test the hypothesis you present, Wesley, would be to look for a difference in male fertility in cultures with a more chauvinistic/paternalistic outlook. To control for the effects of environment, perhaps one could look at immigrants from those cultures (although this could introduce a race bias) within a single country.
In a more short-term study, some men could be given material suggestive of the importance of fathers, and others the importance of mothers (and a control group reading neutral material) to see if this causes any noticeable changes in fertility.
I'd bet my boots that no effect would be found, but I admit it could happen.
Joshua: Here's another one to consider. As the culture has become more overtly sexual, girls are entering puberty sooner than they used to. Is it possible that the stimulation caused by open sexuality is, over time, stimulating a biological response?
Again, I have no idea, but there seems little question that biological changes are occurring that could be argued, dovetail with some cultural shifts.
Of course, this is all supposition.
Don't know if this is off topic Wesley. I suspect I am. There's no shortage of males in India or China. The cultures their are killing unborn and newborn baby girls. No need for studies or hypotheses over there.
"As the culture has become more overtly sexual, girls are entering puberty sooner than they used to."
I thought the accepted idea was that this was due to increased intake of food, especially fat?
"Is it possible that the stimulation caused by open sexuality is, over time, stimulating a biological response?"
Hmm, it's possible but I'd think the response from that would be to increase male fertility and decrease female fertility. At least, that's the usual outcome in the biological world when monogamy begins to wane.
You know, I remember reading a study once that said that women who get pregnant but are not living with the father are more likely to have female children. The theory being that girls are easier to care for for a female without male protection.
The second item I would think has great relevance is the fact that we are flushing so much female hormones down the drain via our love affair with hormonal contraception that estrogen in our ground water is becoming an environmental problem.
Is there evidence of sex-selection abortions with a preferene for girls over boys in industrial nations? Just a thought.
I would wonder whether the evidence showing a supposed decline in male sperm quality is controlling for age.
Jessie, I would have guessed that first part about a female bias that was due to hormonal factors, rather than any psychological desire for a more easily cared for child.
What the hell statue exhibit is THAT?
Oh, yeah. And if a woman without a man is a fish without a bicycle, just imagine how much less the bicycle needs the FISH.
www.benevolentgrammarian.blogspot.com
I think it is from Denmark or one of the other Scandanavian countries. I got it, like most of the images I post, from Google Images, although I throw in an occasional photo I have taken.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home