On mating

My academic training necessitates that I become a proponent of social biology. That is, I have long been subjected to the preaching that many, if not most, human behavior and tendencies are results of evolution and natural selection: only those that are adaptive—good for survival and reproduction—would be passed on and only those who possess these traits would survive and procreate. As the theory goes, our ancestors were hunter-gathers; gender roles and responsibilities and expectations were formulated in accordance to ancient ecological demands. Men were expected to find food and provide protection while women were to work in the field and to bear and raise offspring. Because of the unconscious desire to pass on one’s genes and the biological constraints in humans, courtship became an important part of life. Men wooed women with good promises of fertility while women sought resourceful men. This simple equation is translated into all sorts of complicated and both sophisticated and not-so-sophisticated behaviors and “human nature”, such as the chase after money and power (enhances one’s chances of mating); war (winners gain money and power and mating partner); fashion and the cosmetic industry (to increase attractiveness and thus “market value”); athletic and/or intellectual pursuit (again, market value); and even helping behavior. An extremist of this view would claim that fundamentally all human behaviors are one way or another related to survival and reproduction and that feelings such as love are but byproducts that facilitate the evolutionary goals.

My political beliefs, on the other hand, necessitate that I keep in mind that truth and reality are often socially constructed. That is, many so-called truth are only so because we collectively say and believe it is. Many “facts” are constructed by the powerful and resourceful to sustain the existing social hierarchy and in effect perpetuate social inequality. By this token, attributing mating behavior to solely biological factors is justifying the status quo of male dominance and the oppression of women--since it is a “scientific” truth that women are meant to be primarily mothers, it is only fair to keep them at home and let men take care of business. And this is not just about division of labor. More power to matriarchy.

A related and equally perplexing issue is our desire to have children. It is fascinating to see how women (and, to a lesser extent, men) become more and more obsess with the idea of bearing children as they age. I do not recall ever overhearing my female friends/classmates discussing with passion about having their children when I was younger. But it almost seems like once women reach 25 or so, boom, babies become so much cuter and more desirable. Friends and colleagues alike become more flirtatious with the procreation drive. It is as though the closer women get to 30, the more of a priority getting their eggs fertilized is. Perhaps the desire emerged a lot earlier (after all our grandparents’ generation started mating in their late teens), but social norms and cultural constraints play the role to subdue it. The ticking of the biological clock seems to be harder to ignore with time.

The problem is, our world is too crowded. In fact it has never been in history as populous. Most of the catastrophic crises we anticipate are associated with over-population. The last thing planet earth needs from us is more energy-consuming, environment-destroying, unemployed (and thus angry) people. Babies are cute but, sorry, we as a species simply can no longer afford them, at least not at the current rate. With this perspective in mind, it becomes particularly ludicrous for governments to encourage procreation on the bases of rescuing the economy. Here’s the paradox: while there are more babies created per minute now than ever in history, the number orphans is also increasing, perhaps even more rapidly. So it is not that we lack cute babies in the world, but rather what we lack are cute babies bearing our genes. And this is the challenge we collectively face: can we resist the temptation of our selfish gene and refrain from creating more lives?

If we truly possess the ability to love and that it isn't just a byproduct, then let’s spread it to those who already need them desperately instead of creating more needy receivers of our love (and resources). It is about time to drop the “us vs them” mentality but, pessimistic as it may sound, I can almost guarantee that only a noble few can succeed in this endeavor.

Christian Chan
May 14, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA