Um, well, let's call this a thought experiment. [edited twice]

[sophiaserpentia]

These thoughts are inspired by a post by weishaupt some time ago (I can't find it now, I'm sorry), the novel Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear, and recent conversations with lady_babalon.

Imagine, if you will, that what we call "humankind" is made up of (at least) two distinguishable species. Maybe we should call them "stocks" instead of "species" since they can possibly interbreed. Some might suggest we use the word "races," except that the differences between these two stocks are much deeper than the outward racial markers (which are little more than slight fluctuations or variations). In this thought experiment, most humans bear genes primarily from the first stock, while a small minority bear genes descended from the second stock.

Strictly at random, I will suppose that the characteristics which distinguish the members of the second stock include a heightened sense of mutual interconnection, a tendency towards gender ambiguity, a tendency to use sex for purposes of cementing friendships instead of only for reproduction and pair-binding, and heightened curiosity and problem-solving skill. Being a set of characteristics, not every specimen of second stock is going to exhibit all of these characteristics, and some will exhibit others.

What would it be like to belong to either stock? First, for purposes of mating, friendship, and socialization people would be drawn to avoid members of the other stock. People of the second stock would have a heightened urge to mate with compatible cohorts when they encounter one another -- not just from the biological urge to reproduce, but also for social purposes and sense of comfort and security.

People of each stock would view people of the other stock with suspicion, as competitors for scarce resources -- but the power structure would be different between the two stocks. The first stock, being in the majority, and having the upper hand, would oppress and dehumanize the members of the second stock. The first stock would develop myths and legends depicting their suspicion of the second stock -- labelling them "vampires," "nephilim," "freaks," "witches," and so on, using these legends to rationalize the persecution of that which is different and misunderstood. Members of the second stock would develop strong resentments towards the first stock but would be relatively powerless, except in particular instances, to exact any revenge.

So, one question might be, does the second stock have an evolutionary advantage over the first? If not, that would explain their lack of predominance in the human population -- and we would expect their numbers to dwindle.

On the other hand, if the second has evolutionary advantages, there have to be ways to explain the imbalance. There are several possibilities. The first is that the second stock just hasn't had time to come to prominence yet. The second is that there are disadvantages possessed by the members of the second stock that outweigh the advantages -- which would lead us to expect to see the second stock vanish. The conclusion either way is that the presence of the second stock must be a relatively recent evolutionary occurence.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Please re-read my entry. I have corrected an error that may have yielded the implication you saw. But even in the original entry I nowhere suggested that either stock was more or less "evolved" than the other -- simply that they were different and distinguishable. The mechanism of genetic mutation is mindless and hence entirely unconcerned with morality.

[cleverthylacine]

No, just evolutionary advantage. Which makes it sound like, "We're the special ones, we're the fairy folk, and eventually we're going to outbreed you old fossils."

It's not the two different kinds of people thing.

It's the, of course they don't get along and try to oppress one another thing, and the eventually the group I'm in will be over the other group thing.

It's stuff like this that is the reason I like many poly individuals a great deal, but can't STAND the 'poly community'.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, it's highly questionable that there is any evolutionary advantage in polyamory, homosexuality, bisexuality, intersex, or gender ambiguity. Note that I did explain it's impossible to tell whether this advantage would lead to the "second stock" eventually succeeding, or whether it is in the process of vanishing.

My primary interest is seeking to understand why the vilification of such people is so extremely vehement, beyond rationality. Here's my thought question -- from the standpoint of evolution, competition for scarce resources would drive one species to suppress another. I'm not sure there's any basis in fact for this at all.

[cleverthylacine]

Personally I have never understood why I should have a problem with who you sleep with, how you dress, etc, and if you think you're male, female or none of the above, that's really not my business. I've never felt the need to vilify anyone for ANY of those reasons, and I completely do not understand it.

Being in an area with a predominance of polys and not being poly IS annoying. But the main reason that it is annoying is because people push it the way that some monogamists push monogamy out here, and also because there are a lot of people who are not genuinely 'poly' but are sexually opportunistic--and it's really annoying to be a primarily heterosexual monogamous woman and know that it's going to be that much harder to find a mate because a guy who knows he can find another woman just as cute and smart who will let him date other girls and sleep with them, too, will frequently enjoy this situation for quite a long while, whether or not he's poly, and when he can get all the sex he wants, he feels no reason to go without while he's dating me.

But I don't understand the ooh-kill-it-it's-different reaction, and I never ever have.

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

I think that evolutionarily, it makes sense for us to fear what is different. That sort of fear both kept out ancestors alive and cemented them together as a group- which was also more likely to keep them alive. Fear usually manifests itself in violence and hatred.

I don't think it's competition for scarce resources, as much as it is that simple fear of what is different. What is different could be a predator, or carry a microorganism to which one has no immunity.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Re-reading the entry again, I saw it was necessary to edit my post again. Thought experiments do evolve and refine themselves, after all...