[lbo-talk] Why think anthropologically (at least sometimes)

[Jim Devine]

Bill writes: 
> An implausible theory. It would have been much more efficient to evolve non-sentient human females. Large brains are quite expensive  in terms of the food required to sustain them, so natural selection  already has a prejudice against intelligence. Evolution would have  strongly selected against sentient females if comprehension that sex  leads to pregnancy was any kind of disadvantage.<

The problem is that males and females are essentially the same
creature (subject to different hormone signals) and have co-evolved.
If women had evolved non-sentient, men would have, too, because they
basically have the same brains. Of course, many women would argue that
men _have_ evolved as non-sentient. This bias might be reinforced by
the implausible codswallop above.

Jim Devine