Blahnik

I am reading Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee, an interesting and thought provoking book. Published in 1991, it already shows the lines of thought that he expanded in his later works.

One of Diamond's less convincing ideas --at least to me-- is that the human propensity to abuse drugs is an extension of some forms of animal behavior or evolution that are also "counter-productive" -- or appear to be on first sight. As examples, Diamond mentions the beautiful but cumbersome feathers that male birds of paradise grow to impress the females, and "stotting", a demonstrative form of jumping adopted by gazelles and other four-legged animals to demonstrate their strength and health, and presumably discourage predators. The reasoning is that behavior that seems to waste energy and put an animal at greater risk, can be beneficial because of the impression it makes on others. The implicit message is "Do you see what I can get away with?"

But Diamond seems to jump too far when he seeks to explain drug abuse in this way. Certainly, young men are often driven to use alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by a desire to impress their peers. But I have never heard of animal species that routinely consume intoxicating substances for this purpose, although I have heard of isolated incidents of intoxicated animals. I have never seen the hypothetical David Attenborough sequence in which male birds eat toxic seeds until their heads spin, and the female chooses to mate with the one that waggles least -- or the last one standing. And this cannot be from lack of opportunity, for nature contains plenty of suitable substances.

That is not to say that there are no human equivalents of the feathers of the bird of paradise, but in this festive period, it is easily observed that humans differ in an unusual way: In our species, females wear the colorful plumage. Obviously there are very important cultural factors, because even European male dress once used to be far more colorful than it is today, at least for those who could afford it: An expression of rank and social order. Nevertheless it seems to be a distinct human feature that women dress to impress, and on consideration, it is not an illogical one. Male birds who invest heavily in exquisite plumage to demonstrate their good genes, are often those whose parenting role is limited to contributing their genes: Such a bad deal for the mother who has to rear the chicks, that biologists have wondered why sex exists at all. Therefore it is logical that the bird would have to go to extremely lengths to prove his genetic qualities. But the price we humans pay for our big brains, is being born prematurely and utterly helpless, demanding a far greater commitment from both parents if the child is to survive. It is a comparatively worse deal for the male, who has the sacrifice his ability to father a numerous offspring to look after a small number of children, some of which may not even be his. Therefore it would be logical that at least part of the burden of advertising good genes, has shifted to the females of our species.

If this is the case, an evolutionary theory of fashion might explain one of its eternal debates: That on the possibility to reconcile pragmatism with good looks. As Diamond explains, evolution may dictate that ostentatious display is only convincing if it has a real cost to the wearer, because a peacock train would not be evidence of its owners ability "to get away with it" if it was not a real handicap. In humans, men tend to be attracted by feminine fashions that are distinctly impractical, and at least to some degree, impractical equals sexy. Stiletto heels may be the closest equivalent that a bipedal species has for stotting. Of course, impracticality also equals status, and a bride's train has something in common with a peacock's. That is not to say that practical clothing cannot be beautiful, but the effect on others will never be quite the same.

Of course the principle is not limited to female fashion, and not only to relations between the sexes. In the Napoleonic wars, soldiers went to battle in uniforms that are an amazing absurdity in modern eyes. Some of this splendor may have been directed towards women (or at least towards recruits who joined up in the hope that their uniform would impress women) but evidently a lot of it served to impress other men, both ally and enemy. Bearskin hats, colorful breeches and gilded braid were adopted as the mark of an elite of soldiering, not only despite a conspicuous lack of relevance in combat, but because they were irrelevant. Me great warrior: I can get away with wearing silly hat.

Where does this leave drug abuse? To return to birds, it makes sense to me that hens would evolve to prefer males with bright colors, but not those with a strong head for drink. The females can pass on the genes for bright colors in males without a too large cost to themselves, because they don't have to carry these advertising colors, and even if a larger number of males get eaten by predators, enough will remain to ensure the survival of the species. But passing on genes that lead to a preference for consuming brain-addling substances seems much more dangerous.

Is this too different in humans? It is possible that for a species that is so dependent on its brain as ours, there were evolutionary forces that opened the door to tolerating some use of mind-altering substances. Our survival depended not only on our intellect, but also on our sophisticated ability to communicate, on a complex system of emotions, and our ability to innovate. It is possible that even in stone age cultures, groups of humans that indulged in social drinking --or even in religious rituals involving hallucinogenics-- had more cohesion and a better chance of survival than those that did not. Thus we could have developed and retained genetic factors that makes us vulnerable to substance abuse, without requiring any precedent in the animal world. The fact that we tend to be more tolerant (regardless of the real medical risks) of drugs that are perceived to have a social function, such as alcohol and tobacco, suggest that the origin of our vulnerability may lie there.