If reminds me of Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. We just need to start cloning boys.
Now, if we can just get society to shake off this outmoded "monogamy" we can all get busy re-populating this planet!--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock
I just ate about 7 pounds of meat
"The observed equality of males and females, in the face of obvious advantages for female predominance if evolution worked on groups, stands as one of our most elegant demonstrations that Darwin was right - natural selection works by the struggle of individuals to maximize their own reproductive success...let us say, for example, that fewer males than females are born. Males now begin to leave more offspring than females since their opportunities for mating increase as they become rarer...if any genetic factor influence the relative proportion of males born to a parent (and such factors exist), then parents with a genetic inclination to produce males will gain a Darwinian advantage - they will produce more than an average number of grandchildren thanks to the superior reproductive success of their predominantly male offspring...since the same argument work in reverse to favor female births when females are rare, the sex ratio is driven by Darwinian processes to its equilibrium value of one to one."
So, next time I'm lonely I can blame Darwin, I guess.
The quote is from an essay with one of my favorite titles ever by Dr. Gould: "Death Before Birth, or a Mite's Nunc Dimittis" - which focuses on a species of mite in which the females hatch from their eggs already pregnant with the next generation, having been fertilized in their mother's womb by their (usually) lone brother, who does nothing but die hours after birth. Since exclusive sib mating destroys the premise of the above mechanism driving the sex ratio to 1:1, these mites do tend to maximize their reproductive success by producing one male and as many females as possible. The male, having done his part, is free to "depart in peace", hence the reference to the Canticle of Simeon.
So, if we really want to bring about the whole "two girls for every boy" fantasy, we should just start mating with our siblings exclusively. Since I'm an only child, I'm not real big on this plan.
Since nobody has managed to breed a domestic species into a skewed sex ratio, I'd say that evolution can't do it in mammals (without culling one sex or the other each generation).
limited-time marriages (under slightly different names and terms in the shi'a and sunni traditions) in the Islamic world is, analogously, a way for Muslims to have virtuous casual sex without declaring that casual sex is not vice.
But you really don't need that many men. I mean, after all, each man produces billions and billions of sperm over a lifetime and most of them go to "waste", IYKWIM. Y'all w0m3nz need to be more efficient about how you use all those opportunities.
Lots of species adjust their sex ratio based on external conditions; I wonder if a lop-sided male/female ratio could be the result of some sort of pressure to create more humans overall (i.e., from an evolutionary stand point, more girls==more babies in 15 years).
--Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.