integer on 26 Jul 2000 15:29:46 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] (no subject)

>> what about: "property is theft" - j.j. rousseau ...
>well if you want to give the property of this wit to rousseau itÝs your elegant way
>to escape from oxymoron, but permit I render as jesus or machiavel my crablouses to
>cesar or my prince.. if I undertand something in liberalism and in its indeniable
>force itÝs always in not constructing fom a status quo but always keeping only the
>durable conditions of the best maximisation for the future, itÝs its claimed aim, and
>so much that liberalism seems always searching a competitor for making the proof of
>its performance. Open society and property and justice and so on are just and only
>epiphenomenona : just some temporary rules, modus vivendi etcÍ justice, liberty,
>property are just and only under product or propaganda etc. as art. main one is all
>global goods product whatsit, as prosperity, happiness brief surch synonymous words.
>Property is so much a mean we see in biothec, the property is the only soft in the
>head foundling one for keeping the potential of research.
>So Thus question about art and its rewards who care ? good question is what could be
>the good condition for its maximisation in the future, and only if art remain a
>necessary under product for global performance. but nobody could ŰthinkÝ this whole
>thing, this thing is greater than any brain blabla Í there you escape from old
>utilitarist mani╦re and to be a fucking intellectual in liberalism you you have to do
>: in physically implicate yourself (with your money, your work, your ass, your
>fatigue etc..).. for instance in closed if your name is valentin lacambre.
>I completely agree with heiko rocktenwald in its ŰBut he may not destroy his own
>case, by closing down his thing too early.Ý But exept that in this strange case of
> heiko rocktenwald forget a thing, valery lacambre doesnÝt destroy his own
>case, he proof that free expression is just a mean, not a content and in closing in
>advance he prove that : not to the French authority but to his customers. His own
>case was not his own. ŰProperty is thiefÝ.- Thorsten Schilling.

Evolutionary theory (plainly an activity performed by men of a Certain Age) suggests that sensible females with their eye on the future should choose to mate with old farts rather than young bucks. The reasoning is that the more mature male will -- by virtue of his age -- be a veteran of the
University of Life, and have survived the diseases and other trials of youth. His age will mark him out as the possessor of Genes of Quality. Either that, or he is more likely to have a life policy of a  maturity commensurate with his own. 

Putting aside such cynicism, a number of field studies suggest that a girl's best friend is her sugar daddy, even when the male concerned contributes only sperm to the family unit and scarpers immediately afterwards. Females choose to endure such cads because their genes, if not their behaviour, are superior, and this somehow makes up for it. But does this so-called 'good-genes' explanation of female choice really stand close scrutiny?
Christopher W. Beck and Larkin A. Powell of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, think not, and they present their explanation in a report in Evolutionary Ecology Research1. 

Beck and Powell explore female choice as a function of male age in a computer simulation based on 'viability' -- the chances that a male will live long and prosper, rather than croak at a young age. All other things being equal, the researchers show that in species in which males provide only sperm,
females will go for younger males: the good-genes explanation doesn't work.

Or does it? Examining earlier simulations designed to explore mating preferences, the researchers found that the evolution of female choice depended strongly on the life-history traits of the species as a whole. Females were much more likely to prefer older males in species with high juvenile
mortality and low adult mortality. In such species, old males will be desirable because of their survival value. But in the converse situation -- low juvenile but high adult mortality -- females do better by choosing younger mates.

In general, females tend to prefer older males if they can supply that little bit extra, even if there is a cost associated with choosing the slippers-and-pipe brigade. The researchers cite the case of a fish
called the redlip blenny (Ophioblennius atlanticus), in which females will endure a certain degree of harassment by other fishes if they can mate with older males. The males make up for the distress by guarding nests more vigilantly and for longer than younger males, resulting in a better hatching
rate for the eggs.

Nettime-bold mailing list