this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
316 points (100.0% liked)

196

16224 readers
3321 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
316
Sex (Rule)s (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by GrymEdm@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

There's a lot of evolutionary processes that don't have to do with having more offspring, but increasing the viability of less offspring. Having kids, no matter the species, is a very costly affair. You could argue that mate selection generally reduces the number of offspring, but increases the viability.

I've read a hypothesis (very much unproven) that having some gay members of a species increases the viability by having more people to care for the offspring without being in mate competition. It's called the gay uncle hypothesis

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 months ago

The grandma effect of manopause still applies whether or not we evolved with reproductive thresholds in order to secure that advantage.

So whether or not the gay demographic originally served the population by providing more adults to kids, it certainly does now.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago