From around 2 millions years ago to 10 000 years ago, humans have led roughly the same lifestyle: hunting and gathering. Given the length of time we have lived that way, it is quite clear that it is that lifestyle that determined how we evolved. All of our instincts were shaped by this period. By comparison, the 10 000 years down to the present (only 300 generations) could only have a minimal impact on our biological nature.
During the paleolithic (before 10 000 years BP) Men and Women had distinct food procurement strategies. Men hunted, women gathered (mostly plant foods but also eggs, edible insects, etc).
Gathering is predictable. It yields food items that are not very nutritious, but it does so reliably,
Hunting is random. Sometimes hunters will come back to camp with a large prey; sometimes with a few small prey; quite often with nothing at all. However, meat is highly nutritious; far more so than anything the women can gather. Each time a large prey is caught, there will be e feast at the camp. Children will get a growth boost from the protein and the other nutrients contained in the meat; and everyone will get to stock-up on fat for leaner days.
The bottom line is:
Women pursued a low-risk/low-return food gathering strategy, while men pursued a high-risk/high-return one.
The same applies to sexual strategies. The dominant male gets to have sex with a large number of females but he must fight other males (high-risk/high-return). By contrast, nearly all females are likely to have sex with a small number of partners (successive dominant males) without having to fight for it (low-risk/low-return).
Let us now have a look at a curve that can give us an idea of the social utility of men and women in a paleolithic society. The curve below shows the average daily amount of kilo-calories procured by men and women when individuals are ranked from best performers (on the left) to worst performers (on the right)
The few best hunters kill almost all prey while most men never kill any. By contrast, nearly all women are able to gather a decent amount of food.
What follows from this is clear: In a paleolithic context, some men are superior to all women while all women are superior to the majority of men.
This is not surprising. This kind of curve will appear each time a low-risk/low-return strategy is compared to a high-risk/high-return one.
In the paleolithic, this probably did not have much of a social impact. Back then, there were only two social strata
1) The dominant male, who ranks above everyone
2) Everyone else, males and females, who are on a roughly equal footing.
This all changed with the advent of farming, 10 000 years ago (we will talk about that in the next installment)
What is striking is that the "social utility" curve above is very similar to the success rates of men and women today on Tinder, etc.
In any case, one thing remains. Women's brains are had-wired to pursue low-risk/low-return strategies, while men's are focused on high-risk/high-return ones.
We have to live with the consequences.
During the paleolithic (before 10 000 years BP) Men and Women had distinct food procurement strategies. Men hunted, women gathered (mostly plant foods but also eggs, edible insects, etc).
Gathering is predictable. It yields food items that are not very nutritious, but it does so reliably,
Hunting is random. Sometimes hunters will come back to camp with a large prey; sometimes with a few small prey; quite often with nothing at all. However, meat is highly nutritious; far more so than anything the women can gather. Each time a large prey is caught, there will be e feast at the camp. Children will get a growth boost from the protein and the other nutrients contained in the meat; and everyone will get to stock-up on fat for leaner days.
The bottom line is:
Women pursued a low-risk/low-return food gathering strategy, while men pursued a high-risk/high-return one.
The same applies to sexual strategies. The dominant male gets to have sex with a large number of females but he must fight other males (high-risk/high-return). By contrast, nearly all females are likely to have sex with a small number of partners (successive dominant males) without having to fight for it (low-risk/low-return).
Let us now have a look at a curve that can give us an idea of the social utility of men and women in a paleolithic society. The curve below shows the average daily amount of kilo-calories procured by men and women when individuals are ranked from best performers (on the left) to worst performers (on the right)
The few best hunters kill almost all prey while most men never kill any. By contrast, nearly all women are able to gather a decent amount of food.
What follows from this is clear: In a paleolithic context, some men are superior to all women while all women are superior to the majority of men.
This is not surprising. This kind of curve will appear each time a low-risk/low-return strategy is compared to a high-risk/high-return one.
In the paleolithic, this probably did not have much of a social impact. Back then, there were only two social strata
1) The dominant male, who ranks above everyone
2) Everyone else, males and females, who are on a roughly equal footing.
This all changed with the advent of farming, 10 000 years ago (we will talk about that in the next installment)
What is striking is that the "social utility" curve above is very similar to the success rates of men and women today on Tinder, etc.
In any case, one thing remains. Women's brains are had-wired to pursue low-risk/low-return strategies, while men's are focused on high-risk/high-return ones.
We have to live with the consequences.
Last edited:
