Fair warning here...this is a long blog that deals in controvertial scientific findings and hypotheses. If you can't cope with either, don't bother showing what a failure you are by commenting "too long" at the bottom; everyone knows you're just a point whore for doing crap like that.

Bryan Sykes is a phenomenal researcher with a sharp mind, and he's not afraid to take a risk. Recently, he's combined some theories on genetics, evolution and Gaia hypothesis. All in a very risky way.

The idea behind Gaia hypothesis is that large systems are typically self-correcting when faced with potentially damaging threats. The "spectacular" (and completely fictional) example of this would be the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" where catastrophic weather changes come about due to global warming. True Gaiaologists realize that the actual effects would be more subtle, and that they may not be man-made. For example, a species of termites moves into a region where they have no natural predators and start devastating the surrounding countryside. However, their rapid reproduction leads to less genetic variation so when a disease comes along that they are affected by they are almost completely wiped out. The Gaia hypothesis is essentially a global smack-down that restores balance.

Many people here may not remember, but a few years back there was a discovery of “the gay gene.” Supposedly a gene that only affected males, and a significant number of those that had the gene were homosexual. This caused a huge stir, publicly, as people envisioned ridiculous futures of genetic testing and treating the circumstance as if homosexuality was some sort of genetic disease.

Other researchers, as far back as the 18th (Arbuthnott) and 19th (Geissler) centuries had made another interesting discovery. There is another common male genetic anomaly known as the “super-selfish” chromosome. This chromosome makes sure that Y chromosomes are passed on in favor of X chromosomes. For those of you who remember your high school biology, that men cause the determinate factor of the sex of a child. “Super-selfish” chromosome males are predisposed to having more males.

Evolutionarily, this is good for those males. It means that they will have lots of little male copies to make more male copies and eventually breed other males out of existence. However, it's not so good for anybody but those males. It means problems with the female population. It means loss of genetic stock. It means lack of variance in evolution.

Furthermore, there is something important to remember about “super-selfish” genes. This is not a reflection of the male's personality or their choices. But it should be noted that these men are not necessarily genetic supermen either. They don't have to possess genes that make them healthy or strong or smart. It's just that their genes are efficient at outbreeding other males that produce balanced male and female children.

What's the problem here? Well, that's where the Gaia hypothesis starts to come in. You see, another problem is that there also seems to be a correlation between men who use wealth and power to gain social position and “super-selfish” genes. One example is the infamous leader Ghengis Khan, whose progeny today are said to number in the millions. However, you can look elsewhere and see that it's far more common for families that have great wealth to sire male offspring. Pick a wealthy clan or two and check the figures yourself if you don't believe me.

So in other words, the same people who are limiting our genetic variation are also the ones who are responsible for policy making. The same policies that have been causing needless death because of national violence, polluting our world, driving our species to extinction, and doing their best to stamp out human rights. All in the name of political and financial gain, of course.

Women have always seemed to know that men are fucking up their planet. Sykes just had the stones to show it may have scientific support that they were right. He has established that the "super selfish" gene is a reality in social context and has mapped it's placement in our chromosomes.

So what defense do women have? How can they defend themselves from a group of men who don't only intend to rule over them socially but genetically as well? Actually, they have two defenses. One is built right in and Sykes believes it has a lot to do with Gaiaology. He claims that nature itself is establishing a balance.

You remember I mentioned the so called “gay gene” earlier. One thing I didn't say was that the mDNA that is passed for this gene comes from the female. Not the male. That means that the father still determines if the child is male or female, but the mother is the one who increases her son's chance of being gay. Now why would it benefit a woman to have gay sons?

It does have a benefit if there is a gene that's trying to suppress her X chromosomes. If more men are gay then it limits the amount of reproduction that "super selfish" males can inflict. Sure there will be more "super selfish" males, but they will tend more towards homosexuality.

Something I've mentioned before...doesn't it seem odd that more and more men want to be out bonding apart from women? What does it say when there are males who would rather spend time on activities that only involve other males? Are men who only use women as sexual devices attempting to prove socially that they are not gay?

But I did say that women had another defense. That is choice. To say “basta”. No more. It's not surprising that women often choose to have sex with potentially "super selfish" gene mates if these men are the ones in greater positions of money and power. However, aince women are the only ones that can create children they are the only ones that can choose what the future of our race will be. It's that simple. It puts a whole new spin on the idea of "I have the pussy...I make the rules."