Human Beings Aren’t Elephant Seals. But Still ....
tags: polygamy,polygany
David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and professor of
psychology at the University of Washington; his most recent book is Out of Eden: surprising consequences
of polygamy (2016, Oxford University Press).
Elephant seals are very, very large.
In fact, elephantine. Bulls can reach 16 feet in length and weigh more than
6,000 pounds. Cows are much smaller, about 10 feet long and weighing around
2,000 pounds. This size difference is important, since it arises because of the
elephant seal mating system: the species might be the most polygynous of all
mammals, with successful males establishing harems of up to 40 females. Since
(as in most species) there are equal numbers of males and females, this means
that for every highly successful bull seal there are roughly 39 unsuccessful,
reproductively excluded bachelors. In the world of elephant seals, every
healthy female gets mated, but only a very small proportion of males are
comparable evolutionary winners. On average, four percent of the bulls sire 85%
of all the offspring.[i]
Bulls therefore fight long and hard among themselves for possession of a harem.
Success requires large size, a violent temperament, massive canine teeth
combined with willingness to employ them, a thick chest shield to provide
protection from one’s opponent, and sufficient age and experience.
Female elephant seals wean their
babies in late summer and early fall, after spending much of the summer on
land, members of a crowded, beachfront harem. It turns out that by the time
they are weaned, some young elephant seals are considerably larger than others
– as much as twice the size of their fellow weanlings. These over-sized
juveniles are known as “super-weaners.” Their greater size conveys a distinct
benefit, since after spending a more or less idyllic time on their rocky
beaches, nursing from their mothers, at summer’s end and upon being weaned the
pups must begin a long sojourn at sea, not returning to land until the
following spring. This is, not surprisingly,
a stressful time for young elephant seals, and – also not surprisingly – those
who were super-weaners are more likely to survive. It isn’t known whether male
super-weaners are, in turn, more prone to eventually become harem-masters, but
it’s a good bet, since in a highly competitive system, anything likely to
provide a “leg up” when it comes to physical condition is likely to bring
benefits.
So far, so good, at least for the
super-weaners. A question arises, however. Why – given the payoff of being
super-sized – aren’t all elephant seals super weaners? It turns out that since elephant seal mothers
are limited in how much milk they can produce, there is only one way to become
a super-weaner: a pup must obtain milk from two lactating females. How to achieve
this? It’s not easy. Females are quite determined to make their milk available
only to their offspring, not to someone else’s. This selfishness makes a lot of
evolutionary sense, since nursing mothers who were profligate with their
precious milk would have left fewer descendants (and thus, fewer copies of
their milk-sharing genes) than others who were disinclined to wet-nurse an
unrelated pup.
Nonetheless, even though every pup
has only one genetic mother, it’s still possible for a pup to get milk from two
“mothers.” Elephant seal pups occasionally die while nursing, either from
“natural causes” or because they are literally squashed during the titanic
battles among oblivious, competing bulls, who have females (not the safety of
young pups, who were sired the previous year, possibly by a different male) on
their mind. The death of nursing infants provides an opportunity for an
enterprising young pup: if he can locate a bereaved mother – quickly enough
after her infant has died so that her milk hasn’t dried up - he might induce
her to permit him to nurse, in place of the recently deceased infant.
This is an effective strategy, but
also a risky one, since most females don’t take kindly to allowing an unrelated
baby to suckle. “Sneak sucklers” often get bitten, and may die of their wounds.
But successful ones become what are known (in the technical literature, thanks
to the detailed research of elephant seal maven Burney Le Boeuf) as “double
mother suckers” … and they, in turn, become super-weaners. Here is the kicker: all double mother suckers are male!
Chalk it up to the pressure of polygyny, in the case of elephant seals,
super-polygyny leading – because of the potential payoff to males of being
larger, stronger, and healthier than their competitors - to super-weaners by
way of double mother sucking. All of this requires, of course, a willingness to
take risks, certainly greater willingness than is shown by female pups, who, as
the harem-kept sex rather than the harem-keepers, are pretty much guaranteed
the opportunity to breed so long as they survive. For males in a highly
polygynous species, mere survival isn’t enough. They must stand out from their
peers.
As described
in my recent book, a number of human traits can be understood as resulting from
our shared human history of moderate polygyny. Human beings aren’t elephant
seals. Few – if any – of our fellow Homo
sapiens are double mother suckers. Nonetheless, the data are overwhelming
that little boys are more risk-taking, on average, than are little girls,[ii] a
difference that continues throughout life and is most intense among adolescents
and young adults – precisely the age at which reproductive competition was most
intense among our ancestors, and to some extent, still is today. Examples of
extreme polygyny, such as elephant seals, reveal exaggerations and caricatures
of traits found in human beings as well. We are biologically designed to be
mildly, not wildly polygynous, but those traits found in such extreme cases as
elephant seals, elk and gorillas sheds light on the more modest but nonetheless
real and otherwise perplexing reality of what it means to be human.
[i] B.
J. Le Boeuf and J. Reiter (1988) Lifetime reproductive success in northern
elephant seals. In T. G. Clutton-Brock (ed.) Reproductive Success. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
[ii]
E. E. Maccoby and C. N. Jacklin. (1974) The
Psychology of Sex Differences Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press