The Eusocialization of Humanity

Political acts sometimes reveal more about evolution than intended, so did the recently enacted laws by the Canadian government. They actually prove two laws of evolution:

  1. The evolution of eusociality entails the generation of an asexual class of workers and soldiers.
  2. With evolutionary progress the adaptation of behavior accelerates.

To those who have no background information about the gender related laws, this video can be recommended or for those who better like to read.

Eusociality is a term that has its origin in biology and ecology. It is the most extreme form of division of labor among social animals such as ants and bees. Only a few members of a colony are involved in reproduction while the vast majority carries out day-to-day chores. While the former are called queen and drones the latter are workers and soldiers and they are usually sterile.

Honeybees, for instance, have several ways to secure that reproduction remains a privilege of but a few. They decide by nutrition which one of the female larvae can become a queen. The so called royal jelly fed to a larva allows her to become a queen. Also pheromones, odors secreted by the queen, prevent larvae from becoming sexual. If this were not enough, worker policing completes the job. Worker policing describes the killing of eggs that were laid by worker bees that accidentally are not completely sterile.

Generating asexual workers and soldiers is an evolutionary advantage, of course. Getting rid of mating behavior and all those emotions and feelings attached to it keeps them focused on their chores, so no wonder that natural selection helped this trait to evolve and prevail.

It took several hundred million years for these traits to evolve though. First insects were seen about 400 million years ago, but sex determination and sterile workers evolved at the same time when Dinosaurs roamed the world. That is 250 million years ago.

Humans are much faster in that respect. They only exist for a million years on this planet and already make big steps to generate eusocial asexual workers and soldiers. The lever of control used by humans, social pressure, is much more effective than mere biological mechanisms of control. How this works, the Canadian government recently demonstrated.

Conclusively evolutionary theory is so helpful to analyze politics that’s why politicians notoriously deny it. Forgive the politicians they never understand what they are actually doing. They just act out of instinct which is evolution.

Homosexuality – The Fauceir Perspective

This is a reply to an excellently written and inspiring post.

First, let’s recall some simple evolutionary mechanics. Classical evolutionary theory claims the survival of the fittest in a given population by natural selection which results in a change of allele frequencies. (This rules hold true mostly for bacteria in a Petri dish where effects by sexual reproduction, and biotope dynamics can be neglected.) In such a Petri dish mostly those bacteria survive which have the best strategy to reproduce and to cope with environmental factors.

Next, we move to an other level of abstraction and this is where fauceir theory comes into play. Let’s regard these bacteria as fauciers, abstract units of evolution that behave exactly as stated above, and let’s treat a social group of humans as fauceirs too. (For the same reasons as stated above in conjunction with bacteria in a Petri dish, we consider these groups of humans being tribes living in stone age.) Among other things, a tribe’s survival and competitiveness depends on its reproduction rate which is considerably reduced if this tribe feeds members that are unable or unwilling to reproduce naturally. Therefore, those tribes that evolved strategies to resourcefully cope with the problem of homosexuality were better off and survived while those who have been neglectful became extinct. It is not the topic of this post to discuss all the strategies, fauceirs all of them too, in detail. Just mention some types of strategies that might have evolved:

  1. Genetic. It is in our genes that we (usually) feel attracted to a person of the opposite sex’ appearance, and the same way it might be coded that (at least some of us) feel annoyed when observing same sex caresses.
  2. Behavioral. The subconscious patterns of behavior some of them preformed by genes some others imprinted.
  3. Ethical. Our morals are mainly defined by religion and other social conventions. The education by parents and by society mostly accounts for this part.
  4. Rational. Or, what someone considers being rational. The rational position is what an individual evolves by rationally processing all experiences.


  • As suppression of homosexuality played an important role in humans survival, it is not an issue any more. Our planet is rather overcrowded and soon we expect the development of techniques that make sex unnecessary to propagate human race.
  • There is more to the aversion of homosexuality than simply irrationality.
  • By these theoretical considerations it is fairly plausible that a child with homosexual feelings suffers in a family whose parents have a strong aversion to homosexuality. And I’m sure that empirical data do support this. Then, if we admit that, we also have to admit that a child with normal feeling might feel annoyed by parents with homosexual behavior.
  • If we admit that some of the traits associated with homosexuality (be it aversion or inclination) go in families, a child is best raised by its own parents.

And the taxi driver in the above mentioned post, who wanted to explain rationally his engrained aversion, we’d better not to give a child of him to a homosexual couple for upbringing.

Homosexual Politicians

Time Magazine reports an increase in homosexual politicians in Europe. It lists some example, most of them are males. To analyze this phenomenon from evolutionary perspective, the following preliminary questions have to be answered:

  1. Is there s real increase in number of homosexuals or is it only an increase in number of those who confess it?
  2. Is the number of homosexual politicians greater than the number one would expect from the prevalence of homosexuality?

Though there is no study on that topic, I guess the answer to the second question is YES. The normal prevalence of homosexuality is estimated 3-20% depending on how stringent the criteria of homosexual behavior are set, so 3% is for homosexuals who live in a stable partnership whereas 20% is for those who confess that sometimes in their live they had homosexual feelings. Given these figures the prevalence of true homosexuals in German Government clearly exceeds these estimates. Well statisticians may counter, it is a too small and not representative enough sample, and I agree more serious studies on this topic have to be conducted.
But assuming the prevalence among politicians is significantly higher than in the general population, which I’m convinced it is, then we have to study what favors homosexual males in selection. (I wittingly avoid the term election, as it is a more complex process.)

  1. Homosexual males are kind of immune against feminist attacks.
  2. Homosexual males are not regarded as competitors by other males.

The competition among politicians is fierce and often unfair, so no wonder that criteria as negligible as homosexuality become more important in selection than a politician’s actual capabilities to make seminal political decisions.