We share 98% of our DNA with our closest related species, the chimpanzee, but the differences that make us human are quite profound. The biggest is our energy-hungry brains. Most of the other differences are as a consequence of the energy demand from our big brains. For starters, to be able to get that brain out of uterus, human babies are effectively born nine months premature. From birth, it takes human babies nine months to get to where all the other mammals start from. And the brain’s demands just keep increasing. The brains of human three to five years have 40% more energy demand than adult brains. And the energy supply has to be constant otherwise the infant brain might suffer permanent damage.
In chimpanzee family life, well there isn’t any. The male does not provide food to the female or the fruit of their loins conjoined. The mother provides for herself and the infant learns to forage very early in life. It is a different story in humans. The mother by herself cannot provide the large and constant food supply that the infant requires, so human pair bonding was invented so that the male would contribute to the pool from his efforts at hunting. Non-procreational sex was invented as part of the glue for the pair bond. Even that wasn’t enough because hunting success is patchy and the infant needs food every day. In northern regions where the ground was frozen for months, male hunting success was the only source of food for a good part of the year. To overcome the problem of hunting’s patchiness, group food pooling behaviour developed, and to some extent became likely encoded in our genes. That was a big problem because it was also the invention of socialism and kept us back for hundreds of thousands of years.
Genes can only take human development so far, though. Further progress requires culture. Culture is the continuation of evolution by non-physical means. Some cultures are better than others and that is quite evident when we look at human progress around the world. Common to all cultures, and none miss out on this, is the concept of marriage. The marriage ceremony told the couple, and especially the male, that the purpose of their union was for the provision of their offspring. There is no other reason for their union, a serious undertaking. In fact, in the Middle East of Jesus’ time, marriage as a social institution was reinforced in part by stoning to death women who became pregnant outside of marriage. Otherwise, if the bastard survived to term, the tribe would be burdened with feeding mother and child. The miracle of Mary’s virgin birth has been explained as an act of charity by Joseph in taking in a pregnant woman who otherwise would have been stoned to death.
So, as Cicero said, marriage is the founding bond of society. It evolved very early on in our differentiation from the rest of the ape family, it allowed us to develop the brains that are basis of being human. A good cultural overlay reinforces that so that everyone takes the institution of marriage very seriously indeed, and partners just don’t run off at the drop of a hat after three kids and a tough patch.
Well, that was the case at least until recently and the notion that some people should be allowed to get married just because they would like to join the club of married people. That can only lead to a bitter harvest of broken marriages and abandoned children if the notion of marriage is cheapened and lessened and broadened by including people who are not entering into the state of married bliss in order to produce offspring. The proponents of homosexual marriage know that, and that is why they are promoting it. It is not about a pair of homosexuals being able to look gooey-eyed at each other, it is about undermining civilisation and making our culture more like African-American culture with its 70% illegitimacy rate.
Cultures that reinforce the evolutionary pressures that made us a gracile, intelligent species of ape produce a high standard of living. Cultures that are at cross purposes to those pressures go to hell in a hand basket.
What of homosexuals themselves, the 1.5% of the population who according to basic theory should be bred out of the population pretty quickly? Contrary to current US presidential hopeful Dr Ben Carson, who thinks that homosexuality is a learned condition because some heterosexual males in prison engage in sexual activity with other males, there are homosexuals born that way. Homosexual males tend to have a longer index finger than middle finger, with the opposite in lesbians. Birth order affects the incidence of homosexuality with it increasing with the number of males born to a woman.
All this suggests that the womb reacts to cumulative testosterone exposure. It is possible that the incidence of homosexuality is an acceptable loss, in evolutionary terms, so that the rest of the males can be more male-like. Viewed in that way, homosexuality is part of the human condition. But so is marriage – it is more than just a social construct. A successful culture wouldn’t mix the two. A degenerate culture might.
David Archibald’s next book is Australia’s Defence 2016 and Beyond (Connor Court).