Is Being A Feeder = Dispose Socially Related Evolutionary Advantage/s?

Discussion in 'Weight Gain' started by John Smith, Apr 9, 2018.

  1. Apr 9, 2018 #1

    John Smith

    John Smith

    John Smith

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Laval, QC (Canada)
    Share your thoughts and experiences related to this topic and explain whether why you agree or disagree about it.
     
  2. Apr 17, 2018 #2

    jakub

    jakub

    jakub

    Visitor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    , male
    Probably but evolution is random, I mean random vector of properties expansion and then verification in real life, so if this ditching social advantage will not work out... this branch will die.
     
  3. Apr 25, 2018 #3

    John Smith

    John Smith

    John Smith

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Laval, QC (Canada)
    Your stance is quite interesting. Can you elaborate more, please?
     
  4. May 11, 2018 #4

    fat hiker

    fat hiker

    fat hiker

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    Do you mean, does being a feeder give you an advantage in the overall terms of evolution - that is, an advantage in handing your genes down through reproduction?

    I'm not sure what a 'socially related evolutionary advantage' is.

    Evolution, after all, is all about whether or not you are able to pass your genes on through reproduction - evolution runs in the direction of those individuals able to reproduce the most widely. I think being feeder would generally not be an evolutionary advantage, as feeder/feedee couples tend to have fewer children than the average - but I could be wrong about that, I don't see much available data.
     
    John Smith likes this.
  5. Oct 2, 2018 #5

    y2kboris1

    y2kboris1

    y2kboris1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    JeffyWantsAnApple,
    I think it's mixed. We all have to keep in mind that evolution is an inanimate idea; it doesn't care at all about any of our preconceived ideas, good and evil, what people find attractive, only about who reproduced and who didn't. I find it funny how a lot of evolutionists and anthropologists argue that being overweight, or being attracted to overweight individuals is somehow always an evolutionary disadvantage. I honestly think they're wrong. You have to look at through two different lenses: 1) We've been studying this stuff for maybe 150 years, so to draw conclusions about what is proadaptive or maladaptive yet I think is really foolish (we simply don't have enough data). 2) FWIW I don't know about the feeder/feedee relationship and actually being fat/overweight, but there's definitely a case to be made that at least in times past having a propensity to have a slow-as-molasses metabolism was advantageous to survival. Everyone assumes in the modern world that having a slow metabolism is an advantage because it allows you to be thin and physically fit easier. In reality if you think about it those of us who have a faster metabolism might actually be inferior. Allow me to explain: those who have a slow metabolism use energy more efficiently, and therefore waste fewer resources in terms of energy and raw materials. Their biological processes are more efficient, allowing them to survive for longer periods of time before starving.

    In the ancient world during hunter-gatherer times before modernity having that little bit of extra pudge-fudge (about 20-30lbs) might've meant the difference between life and death during lean times, or winter, or for women during pregnancy. It's only in the modern world where food is plentiful that people who have that innate ability to more efficient use caloric energy tend to get screwed, because a naturally ingrained instinct tends to fire in an environment where food is cheap, and so plentiful that it can be found on every corner. The combination of a survival instinct to eat, rather than starve to death and die combined with an efficient survivalist metabolism might at least partially explain why some struggle so incredibly with losing weight.

    I think that if we see a major cataclysm in our lifetime, like a nuclear war, or an asteroid strike, or just a really bad natural disaster, and food is just NOT readily available people will quickly be reacquainted with just how important it is to have people who have slow metabolisms. I think the genotype/phenotype might be the only thing that stands between us and our survival and destruction/extinction. The ability to easily store energy as weight, and not starve would be useful in a brutal survival situation.
     
    fat hiker likes this.
  6. Oct 2, 2018 #6

    fat hiker

    fat hiker

    fat hiker

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    122
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON

    I like this line of thought, and have had similar thoughts before. When I look at the people around me, and see who tends to be thinner and who heavier, and relate that to where the majority of their ancestors lived in pre-industrial times, I think I see a tendency to pudginess and a more efficient, slower metabolism among those whose ancestors regularly or irregularly faced famine, while a steadier food supply de-emphasized that need.

    Or maybe I'm just defending my own stocky, heavyset body by blaming it on my Anglo-Saxon and Celtic farmer ancestors and the routine crop failures of the British Isles!
     
    John Smith likes this.

Share This Page