Recently I was in a conference involving a talk about bio-mimetic design, which is essentially utilizing nature inspired ideas for engineering applications.
One of the lecturers mentioned three interesting points, which may be relevant to some of recent discussion in the androsphere (see Heartiste’s post about female athletes becoming male-like…):
1. It is common for bio-mimetic engineers (and almost everyone else) to believe that nature design is “optimal” (e.g. a fish shape is optimal for swimming in water), while it might be optimal, it never optimal with regard to a single parameter, but a wide array of parameters and biological limitations acting on the organism.
2. Many species are still significantly evolving and hadn’t reached the optimal configuration yet.
3. Even when species reaches some kind of stable optimum (e.g. sharks) there is no guarantee it is a global optimum, only a local one (look for global and local maxima if you don’t get this point).
In conclusion, while the evolution point-of-view (and specifically evolutionary psychology) indeed can be used to understand our world, and is a powerful weapon for fighting equality/individualism/morality dictated by progressives, it has limitations.
With regard to the discussion in the androsphere on female athletes becoming male-like, my view is that both men and women are optimized to running, fighting, etc… however for men this parameter is more significant compared to women, and thus their bodies are adapted accordingly. Since the best female athletes represent an optimization for strength/speed/etc, their optimization is more like men and they thus are more manly.
