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

bloody sunday

[belisariuss.livejournal.com]

why not include chastity with your second stock?

the problem is
that you have picked
things
which lie outside the norm
and placed them together

like saying that dems and republicans are of one stock
and
all other parties
are of another stock


also
I would agree with the earlier poster
who stated
that the things which you list
aren't always connected


Constantine

Re: bloody sunday

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

why not include chastity with your second stock?

Indeed, why not? That too could be an interesting thought experiment. Where does it lead?


the problem is
that you have picked
things
which lie outside the norm
and placed them together

How is that a problem? It seems to me obvious that if these characteristics are rooted in biology, that they could only be exhibited by a minority of the human population. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "outside the norm," no?


the things which you list
aren't always connected

All that means is that if genes are responsible, then it has to be more than one -- a cluster of genes that often occur together, but not always.

church bells ring

[belisariuss.livejournal.com]

have you ever looked at the sexual attitudes of prechristian western civilization?


Constantine