• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I wonder if there is any evolutionary advantage to larger breasts. AFAIK, there’s no difference in their ability to deliver milk to babies. And smaller breasts probably have an advantage in a woman’s movement and agility, not to mention avoiding back pain. Humans also seem to be the only animal that has larger breasts than necessary – OTOH, humans are also the only mammal that walks upright, so there are other biological differences.

    If it’s the case that the only evolutionary reason for large breasts is to better attract (some) men, that would be interesting.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      If it’s the case that the only evolutionary reason for large breasts is to better attract (some) men, that would be interesting.

      It’s not like large breasts are more common than not large (unless you mean anything larger than nothing at all). I suspect there was a random mutation, and it didn’t hurt their reproduction chances but it didn’t help either. So you end up with a variety of breast sizes.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        For some reason, only one ape species ever has non-small breasts. You never get large breasted gorillas, chimpanzees or bonobos even though they share 98% of their DNA with us. What is it about humans that means that that trait was evolutionarily advantageous? It’s obviously a feature with significant disadvantages, so what is the advantage that offsets that for humans in a way that it doesn’t for other great apes?

    • Piemanding@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Milk cows have larger breasts than necessary, but that’s from artificial breeding rather than any sort of evolution or adaptation.