>

There really isn't "positive" or "negative" evolutionary traits. The only thing that matters is that there's a bunch of bald guys repopulating
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

A trait doesn't have to be helpful for survival. It just has to not be detrimental. >

Not only that, but detrimental traits can also persist if the mutations to combat them have never appeared, or if an individual is generally able to reproduce before their appearance, or if individual genes that cause the trait are beneficial when combined differently, are present in the opposite sex, etc. There are many factors. >

exactly, a living proof is the Babirusa! >

That's the boar with the teeth that pierces their own skull, right? >

Wat >

It’s exactly as it sounds. It’s a type of South American wild boar that continuously grows a pair of tusk over its life. If it doesn’t somehow grind them down fast enough the tusks will eventually pierce it’s skull killing it. >

Damn! Also its* >

it could just be a neutral trait, thats not detrimental enough to evolve out of the population, but not exactly positive either. >

It also generally doesn’t appear until one has already procreated, thereby not being selective. >

Not true really. I’ve known several guys in my life that had male pattern baldness in their mid twenties. It’s not extremely common but yes it does happen and it has nothing to do with procreation. >

When we're young, we are strong and fast. When we get old, we slow down. So our heads go bald to be more aerodynamically efficient. >

As a cyclist… this response makes me so happy. If it ain’t Aero, I don’t want it. >

Since it's so common, apparently complete stupidity is a positive evolutionary trait. >

It technically is a positive evolutionary trait, because people who are less educated tend to have more children. >


who are less educated tend to have more children

True 30+ years ago where you can own a home with minimum wage and still go on vacations. Not so much after the millenium as everything got so expensive. >

Not necessarily positive, just not selected against. Probably because male pattern baldness shows up long after sexual maturity and therefore doesn't impact the likelihood of reproducing all that much >

I've known people who started going bald at like as low as 10 and quite a few in early-mid 20s. Aweful feel bad for em! >

Have we met? I started going bald in high school >

Wow so many people on this thread need to go back to Biology 101.
Not all selected traits are positive. They just don't hinder survival/procreation. In fact, some genes transcribe to multiple traits, one positive, one negative. For example: the genes that transcribe to sickle cell anemia (negative) also help with not feeling the full effects of malaria (positive), and in certain environments the positive trait creates a better chance of survival over the hindrance that suckle cell anemia causes. So just because there's a lot of people with sickle cell anemia doesn't mean it's a positive trait. Or sometimes traits are common but also are to our current understanding negative, like depression or parkinson's. But many are just... average. It all depends on the survivability not just of the organism but of the progeny they have with those traits that can then go on and pass them down and so on and so forth. >

"it could just be a neutral trait, thats not detrimental enough to evolve out of the population, but not exactly positive either."
Do you agree with this statement? >

Sieves on what we're taking about but in general yes? >

okay thanks >

Sure, when you go bald at 30 and girls finally leave you alone, you can focus on making your existing offspring survive! >

i don’t want to be bald, but I would definitely do Stanley Tucci >

It could also mean that when you get it you're past prime reproductive age and therefore genetics doesn't give a fuck what happens to you. >

Lovely sentiment.
Sadly not entirely accurate to say that because something is common it is a positive evolutionary trait. It may be something that simply hasn't caused enough of a genetic barrier to have been selected out.
I imagine baldness is one of these genetic traits, like the presence of an appendix, wisdom teeth and Gall bladders. Just elements that aren't positive and can be a problem but don't kill enough of us to be selected out. >

It doesn’t become apparent until a while after puberty, which means throughout human history a lot of breeding already took place before anyone knew they’d be bald. >

Since it’s so common, apparently cancer is a positive evolutionary trait. >

Its not really that common. Effects less than .5%. >

Same could be said for cancer if it being common was the only qualafacation >

I guess we are getting better at treating cancer so more cancer genes survive onto the next generation >

Cancer is not solely genetics. >

But in most cases genes have a big influence afaik >

I save so much money not buying shampoo and conditioner, genetics just cares about my wallet >

I seem to remember some studies that showed that bald men appear less aggressive than men with a full head of hair. That could mean that men that go bald earlier have more of a chance to stay in a family group without being seen as a competitor allowing them to stay or not be killed by competing males.
It could also be that in some circumstances less aggressive men are considered more valuable than more aggressive men.
All this to say, i don't mind that I am loosing the hair on my head but why does it have to come back out of my nose, ears, back and ass? >

Male pattern baldness arises long after most men reproduce, and thus is not a factor in selective breeding. >

Traits that contribute towards breeding only have to last until breeding age. Certainly some men get bald early. If you have your kids in your 30s and you're not bald until your 50s, you done did breed already. >

From what I understand MPB is a result of extended exposure to testosterone, which is an extremely beneficial trait in survival >

Um, not in survival necessarily, but definitely in reproduction, which is all that matters for the topic at hand. >

Producing sperm and successfully delivering it to an egg are vastly different goals >

Baldness normally occurs after the guy reproduces.
It is more likely that the baldness has a separate cause that is itself a positive evolutionary trait, i.e early maturity, the right hormone mix, etc. >

Nope. Humans are full of negative traits. Especially after medical and environmental advances >

Natural selection cares about keeping you a fit and handsome mate from your teens through your 20s, and assumes you've reproduced by the end of your 30s. After that, you've served your purpose. Your immune system weakens, cognitive decline sets in, and you go bald. >

It the modern age we’ve effectively defeated natural selection, hence why people with glasses survive into adulthood and are more common. >

I’d say most MPB doesn’t usually set it till after the male has procreated, so it’s not involved in species selection.
However I went bald around 28 so this isn’t always the case >

It's believed to be caused by Testosterone being converted into thr Androgen DHT which is at least partly responsible for, among other things, fertility. So this is not really a groundbreaking suggestion. >

Indication of potent testosterone iff you've got the gene. Particularly as it's carried by the X chromosome.
Maybe >

bald men dont have more dht than men with hair, the follicles are just sensitive to it >

I didn't say "more".
Too use an archaic example:
Lots of people graduate, only some of them wear the ring. If you need a graduate you can ask around, but seeing the ring is faster and can be fine with a distance.
The fact that bald men are signaling potency doesn't say anything about those blood lines who can't signal this way.
It's a tiny evolutionary advantage to carry the gene on the X chromosome as a woman's son is capable of indicating potency if previous is present.
Genetics is about the accumulating of tiny situationally positive traits, well attempting to discard the negative ones. >

Being bald doesn't stop you from reproducing before you die so it's evolutionarily irrelevant. >

I’ve read that men with male pattern baldness have more testosterone, so that would explain why it persists and the genes for it keep getting passed on >

Most men reproduce before their hair falls out. Which means that it's not about the reproduction but about the survival of the young that have already been produced that is the issue. 
Perhaps there is some connection between bald headed men and the ability to feed children. Someone needs to send me a lot of money to do this research. >

Well baldness comes from high testosterone levels which was definitely a positive evolution trait. So baldness is more so a byproduct of high T rather than bring its own positive trait >

It is not accurate to say that male pattern baldness is a positive evolutionary trait. While it is true that male pattern baldness is a common condition, it is not considered an advantageous trait from an evolutionary perspective. Male pattern baldness is a genetic condition that is thought to be influenced by both environmental and genetic factors. It is not clear whether or not male pattern baldness confers any evolutionary advantages or disadvantages, and it is likely that the condition arises due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors. >

Did you generate this with ChatGPT? >

Counterpoint:  MPB makes men generally less attractive relative to men without it, thereby biasing reproduction to be more challenging, especially in attracting a partner possessing the best evolutionary traits.
Source:  Man with MPB >

No, we just never evolved to be old. By the time we started getting old that was because of healthcare, so we really didn’t need to evolve anything anymore. >

Never evolved to be old? Do you believe ancient people never lived past 35? Look around in the animal kingdom, most animals get old with changing hair and sagging skin.
Yes the average age of death is increasing, but that doesn't mean thousands of years ago people never got to 70 years old. It's just pretty much standard now that we live in a less dangerous time >

They didn't say no one lived to 70. They just imply that it's not common. Plus we're not look at a few thousand years. But hundreds of thousands to millions of years that it wasn't necessary. >

Historically speaking, by the time you have gone bald, most of your lifes contributions are over anyway.  Only recently did we start living longer and doing more in older age >

Noooooo........there are specific populations that hair loss is weird. Clearly not china or korea, but ive seen many Phillipino men have have only thinned hair well into their 80s. They are just so old its thinned. Definitely not bald though. My grandpa has this hair type and so did my other grandpa.
One of them is philliapino the other is Italian. One is my dads side the other is my mothers. I'll be in my 30s with no signs of thinning next year. >

Well, we lost most of our hair on our body. Maybe they are just ahead regarding evolution, and humans will all be bald in the future. >

This also supports that theory that we’re slowly heading closer towards the archetypical ‘Grey’ alien >

It’s a symptom of excess testosterone which evolutionarily is a plus >

Bald people look like ball
Sacs especially when they have double chins >

If you reach 30 that's past prime breeding age.  Evolution considers you dead by then.  Since any kids past that before modern tech has more chances of failure.  Be it miscarriage or genetic diseases like autism. >

Evolution does not consider you dead after 30. Menopause, for example, is an evolutionary trait. It is beneficial for the survival of the offspring of the offspring. A woman will loose her ability to reproduce but not her maternal instincts which helps her progeny to survive. A older man that ages better than others will also help his progeny. >

I find it interesting how bald/balding men are often very hairy elsewhere (including chest, shoulders etc)