David Friedman on the Mating/Reproduction Game
why we care about relative status
If you are a better hunter than I am you will be better able to feed your offspring — but that does not make me less able to feed mine. But if being a better hunter gives you more resources, status, whatever matters in our society, you will also be better able to attract mates. Mates, unlike game, are in strictly limited supply
This provides a plausible explanation for why we care about relative status.
males should be more concerned with relative outcomes than females. Wombs are a scarce resource, sperm is not. Even a not very successful female can expect to reproduce, although her success in mate search will determine the genetic quality of her mate and how much help she gets rearing her children. An unsuccessful male is likely to have no children at all, a successful one many. From the standpoint of reproduction, being male is a high-risk gamble.
He also says that this theory predicts that
people should be most concerned about relative outcomes in a range near their own level.
I have seen Tyler Cowen claim that this is true.
Friedman makes the point that caring about status only makes us indirectly concerned with reproductive success. If we directly cared about reproductive success, then
Men would pay for the privilege of donating to sperm banks, women for donating eggs.
If you subscribe to Friedman’s substack, you will see a substantial overlap between his interests and mine. Not shocking, of course.
This essay is part of a series on human interdependence.
Substacks referenced above:
@
"Men would pay for the privilege of donating to sperm banks, women for donating eggs."
The technology that would allow this is so new and novel there is no way that human beings would have evolved to desire it.
A man could donate sperm, but generally speaking only the very best sperm gets selected at a sperm bank. It's even more Darwinian than mating.
A woman can donate eggs but that's a pretty onerous process. The woman is primed to want to get pregnant via sex and then raise children, not to inject herself hormone shots and then go through an invasive surgery so that the abstraction of a child might be raised by a stranger.
David/Arnold
I recently read Micheal Poylani’s essay “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry”. This slice . . .
“Biological systems, like machines, have, therefore, functions and forms inexplicable by chemical and physical laws. The argument that the DNA molecule determines genetic processes in living systems does not indicate reducibility. A DNA molecule essentially transmits information to a developing cell. Similarly, a book transmits information. But the transmission of the information cannot be represented in terms of chemical and physical principles. In other words, the operation of the book is not reducible to chemical terms. Since DNA operates by transmission of (genetic) information, its function cannot be described by chemical laws either.’’
I agree. I don’t think atoms or molecules can have any teleological function. Recalls Aristotle’s theory of nature. Rocks fall because that’s their ‘nature’.
Material dna essential for human life. Necessity isn’t sufficient.
I think human competition, envy, more explained by striving for self-esteem, especially since most draw self-respect from their group, not from their own evaluation.
Self-esteem isn’t inherent in genetic information. Mind, conscience, love, hope cannot be explained by material means.
As Newton wrote ‘Blind metaphysical necessity cannot explain all the amazing things that exist’.
Thanks
Clay