The Theory of Devolution: Adam's Curse by Bryan Sykes

Bryan Sykes is a geneticist, so it's natural that he should see the world as the interplay between our genetic material. I'm not sure that behavior is as easily explained as he would have us believe, because his theories don't address the incredible range of behaviors that humans actually display. It would be nice to say that a particular characteristic is driven by a genetic predisposition, because that would give us the option of fixing it when the technology is available. On the flip side, it would give us the ability to upset the balance of nature, which would have unforeseen consequences. If you doubt that this is possible, consider that since it became possible to identify a child's gender early in a pregnancy, India and China have 40 Million fewer women than Nature would have created because people are using the technology to abort female fetuses. Women who are outnumbered suffer the most oppressive conditions. Primate colonies that have been assembled in zoos with an excess of males have seen the tragic consequence of females, infants included, being raped to death and beyond. We'll get back to that in a minute.

Sykes would have us believe that this is a result of the genetic make-up of men. He states specifically that the behavior is driven by the Y-chromosome's innate need to assure its propagation. In his book Adam's Curse: a Future without Men, he uses extremely andro-centric terms to describe what he views as a war between the Y chromosome, which is found only in men and passed only from father to son, and the mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) which is specific to women and passed only through the mother's line. While Sykes uses the imagery of the Gaia Hypothesis to describe the destructive effect of Adam's Curse, his description of it and the processes he claims created it belie his patriarchal biases.

Sykes defines Adam's Curse as the rapid process of Sexual Selection which has rewarded the Y-chromosome of the most aggressive, wealthy or greedy men with the widest distribution of their DNA. He believes that this shift from biological selection of the healthiest or strongest to the selection of the most violent may doom the human race to extinction, and he states that "women's choice" has helped to create the imbalance that has worsened through recent history. He consistently calls it aggression, and repeatedly goes back to women's choice which he tells us was often coerced. The word he's looking for, but never uses, is rape. From a certain view, he is telling us that men have benefitted from their willingness to rape. It's a subtle expression of the same old "boys will be boys" excuse, and it's bullshit. There have been human civilizations that existed without violence.

Rape has, indeed, been a lucrative practice for men. The sexual slavery of women and the political slavery of other cultures has allowed a few men to concentrate wealth and influence. It's no accident that one of the most common genetic profiles found in Asia is that of Genghis Khan. Sykes would have us believe that the violence and aggression of such an individual is the expression of a successful Y-chromosome. To say that "women's 'choice'" has exaggerated this trend puts the blame on the victims. Why does this surprise me.

First, he tells us that the mDNA does what it can to destroy the Y, which makes sense - Nature prefers her own gender. He also describes the robust and much older life of the mDNA, which can be traced 140,000 years in the past, as opposed to the 59,000 year life span of the Y-chromosome. He continually states that maleness is dependent on the presence of the Y gene, even though he admits that it is dependent on hormones produced in the mother's womb at the 6th week of fetal development or the embryo will be an XY female. He's determined to attribute male homosexuality to an attack in the mother's womb designed to prevent the transmission of the Y, yet he is strangely silent on the subject of female homosexuality. His only reference to it is a claim that very masculine women are subjected to an excess of androgens while in the womb.

He goes into great detail of the trends that occur in studying homosexual men: they are much more likely to have older brothers; they are much more likely to be left-handed; It doesn't pass from father to son - although it would seem obvious why this is the case. He doesn't have any data, apparently on the offspring of gay men from which to draw. They do exist, and I wonder why there hasn't been more effort to study that part of the genetic puzzle. Maybe he's saving that for a future book, but I doubt it. He's pretty determined to attribute it to the mother and leave it at that.

The most aggravating part of the book is that he goes into great detail trying to envision how there might be an all male human race, which is strange because anyone who knows anything about the structure of the ova and sperm knows that only the ova has the capacity to exist independently of an external cell. He tries to convince us that human parthenogenesis is not possible, but even he admits that the only known obstacle to it, a process called imprinting, is probably easily overcome. He also acknowledges that women produced through IVF techniques would be perfectly normal in every way.

He is so horrified of the prospect of a human race with no men that he actually refers to Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto and states that "men are on notice" because it is "bound to happen". He then refers to a book called The Red Queen by Dirk Draulans which details what he believes is a plausible scenario for eliminating men altogether. I honestly believe the idea terrifies him, because he ends the book in a world without men, and he admits that the world would at least be freed from Adam's Curse. In other words, sexual selection for greed and violence would no longer occur, and the world could live in peace. He needs to check out the Outer Limits episode called Lithia sometime. It would give him nightmares.

If Sykes is right, men's time on Earth may indeed be coming to an end. I don't advocate that, of course - I love men. Rather than entertain doomsday scenarios, I'd like to see men take responsibility for the disposition of their Y-chromosomes. I think we're now conscious enough to temper the effect of our innate drives with some humanity and decency. Maybe we just need to stop rewarding greed and violence with sex. Stop the rape culture in its tracks. It certainly makes Matriarchy seem like a sensible solution to the problem. Let the natural majority make the decisions since they aren't hardwired for violence and greed. Maybe we shouldn't let men vote? Would there be war in a Woman's World? Sykes seems to think not.