There are a few different universes that have the same, or similar, rules
about this sort of thing, but I’ll only talk about the one. Evolution is a
pretty simple concept when you really get down to it. A mutation occurs in
an individual specimen. If it doesn’t prevent that individual from
surviving, that trait is more likely to be passed down to the next
generation. It doesn’t matter if the trait is good or bad. It only has to be
good enough to survive in the bloodline (i.e. to not prevent that bloodline
from continuing). There are some evolutionary traits that shouldn’t exist,
and some have suggested that this is evidence that some higher power is up
there, making decisions. I don’t think that’s true, but the universe today
is crazy enough to make me doubt my faith in science. When two members of
the opposite sex have intercourse for the first time, they will be forever
bonded to each other, on multiple levels. They will release chemicals that
not only prevent them from producing children with different partners, but
also from even having sex with other people. If they try, it will hurt. Two
sexually incompatible partners who attempt to join will both be flooded with
painful chemicals that flow throughout their bodies, and don’t stop until
the sex stops. Other universes have similar compatibility limitations, but
don’t take it this far. They can still choose multiple partners, it’s just
that they can only produce offspring with their so-called soulmates. Why did
evolution come up with this? What could possibly drive such a ridiculous
series of traits? Well, the obvious answer is that forcing a single soulmate
encourages the family dynamic, which supports the stable upbringing of a
child. But is that enough? Apparently so, but it doesn’t make much sense;
not according to evolutionary biology.
As I was saying, an evolutionary trait will persist down the bloodline if it
doesn’t prevent the bloodline itself from persisting. This should not have
happened in this case. The first sign of this incompatibility trait should
have been stopped shortly after the mutation appeared. Most animals copulate
with multiple partners. They’re all just trying to pass their genetic
information onto their descendants. It’s the number one biological
imperative. Restricting an individual to one lifelong partner is fine for
humans, and a few other animals, but only when it’s a choice, or rather,
only when it’s not the only avenue. Most of the time, monogamy is not a very
good survival trait, and it doesn’t always support the biological
imperative. Sure, perhaps a child is better off being raised consistently by
two parents, but evolution isn’t about the survival of an individual. It’s
about the continuity of the species as a whole, and math tells us that
having a lot of children has been the default tactic for most of
evolutionary history. Monogamy only works well when you have options, not
when it’s unavoidable. What if the father dies after only producing one
child? It’s up to that child to continue the bloodline, and if it also dies,
then it’s over. It’s much better if the mother can go find another partner,
and give their first child half-siblings. While the original father’s
genetic traits may end, at least hers has a chance to go on. All this being
said, the arguments against this sort of thing don’t seem to have stopped it
from happening to the humans who evolved in this universe, so there must be
some significant benefit that I’m not seeing. Despite the bizarre
constraints, the residents have been quite successful, and even prosperous.
No comments :
Post a Comment