Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!manderse
From: manderse@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mark Andersen)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,sci.bio
Subject: Re: reproductive stragegy and human behavior
Keywords: Men,Women,Competition,Selection
Message-ID: <1590@orion.cf.uci.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 89 23:41:47 GMT
References: <756@microsoft.UUCP> <1714@psu-cs.UUCP> <800@microsoft.UUCP> <845@microsoft.UUCP> <7376@rosevax.Rosemount.COM>
Reply-To: manderse@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mark Andersen)
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 62

In article <7376@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes:
>In article <845@microsoft.UUCP>, gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>> In article <7337@rosevax.Rosemount.COM>, carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes:
>> > Let's see now.  Most ungulates fall on the 'fast reproductive rate'
>> > side; most of them are prey, not predators, and must keep their
>> > numbers up to keep the species up and the pradetors in dinners.
>> >> Everybody must keep their numbers up.  Everybody keeps their numbers
>> up as high as possible.  
>Gordon, this is simply not true.  Most predator species have built
>into their instincts some type of behavior that serves to keep their
>numbers *down*.  
>
>					Carole Ashmore

A quick search through the behavioral ecology/evolution literature will turn
up many papers arguing BOTH sides of this question. The two issues involved
are:

1) Group selection. Can behavior that is advantageous to some social group,
   but disadvantageous to the individuals performing the behavior, be 
   selected for? The answer, in general, is NO. The only likely exception to
   this has to do with the notion of "inclusive fitness" w.r.t. the
   evolution of altruistic behavior in social species. The benefactors of 
   altruistic behavior should be close relatives of the altruist, or the 
   behavior cannot be selectively advantageous. As Haldane said, "I would 
   lay down my life for two brothers or eight first cousins" (or words to
   that effect).

2) Prudent predation. It seems reasonable that predators should avoid driving
   their prey to extinction. However, this leads to a "tragedy of the commons"
   situation. To ensure his/her own fitness, each _individual_ predator 
   should eat as much as possible. In fact, the LARGE literature on predation
   seems to indicate that predator feeding rates in nature are constrained
   by the foraging efficiency of the predator, particularly handling times
   for prey items, searching efficiency, interference between predators 
   (especially important for social species), and transit times moving between
   prey patches. 

Entry-level partial reference list:

a) Ehrlich and Roughgarden. 1987. The Science of Ecology. Macmillan.
   (chapters 6, 8, and 13)

b) Futuyma. 1979. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer.
   (chapter 12, particularly pp. 302-307 on group selection & kin selection)

c) Wilson. 1980. Sociobiology. Abridged edition. Belknap. 
   (first five chapters, esp. ch. 5)

Yours for a higher level of discussion,



			       Dr. Mark C. Andersen
			       Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
			       University of California, Irvine
			       Irvine, CA 92717
			       (714) 856-5384
			       manderse@orion.cf.uci.edu

"We live in a time when men would rather be envied than esteemed."
				G. Trudeau