Note to the author of the Darwin Awards books and site:
Nearest and I just read Next Evolution and laughed our heads off; you have nothing to apologize for, reporting on the stupidity of the Ape That Walks Like A Bacterium.
We very much enjoyed your science detours. You’ll understand my next question as based in scientific curiosity, and not anger (well, maybe a bit, dealing with the Rejecta). I’m NOT a scientist, but I hope I understand scientific rigor:
Given that the human male seems to kill a large proportion of the females of this species (admitting that this is an unproven proposition and would need research), especially if he has a history of being rejected by females, or if any female rejects him, is it possible that this is an extreme development of a normal breeding instinct?
As most — if not all — males fight and/or kill males of their species to prevent the other males from passing on their DNA (even though — or if — unconsciously), could the killing of human females, contingent on a given male being rejected or otherwise not allowed to breed, be an attempt to make her unavailable to another male to pass on his DNA?
Taking into consideration of “unnatural” environments — as the roebucks described by Konrad Lorenz, that gored fenced females and young because the males could corner them — is it a natural human instinct for the male human to kill the female he cannot impregnate?
Does the “unnatural” human environment actually PREVENT many deaths through education and societal controls?
(You probably recognize the Garbage Brain that can lead to being a scientist, or an engineer… or a ham radio operator).
(Possible reference: the 1989 Montreal selective killing of females).
Thank you for your time.