As I was taking a shower today a strange thought struck me. I had the realization that my recent difficulty in finding a girlfriend (the old one broke up with me) is a very common condition for most men throughout human history.

People who studied the birth rates of the sexes have noticed that the birth ratio is not 1/1 but 105/100 boy/girl ratio on average for all countries and ethnic groups in the world. It seems that because of the violent instinctual tendencies within human kind, it was expected by nature (in her infinite wisdom) that around a certain small percentage of young males that are born are supposed to be killed off before they get a chance to mate with a human female.

Let’s think about how most “advanced” societies in our past work out. Throughout most of human history, a tribe or civilization would often for a time be ruled by a dystopic dictator who would control everything. These societies often led to the male dictator to develop a system where he hordes a group of women to be his sexual mates. He would have his servants who might go around his nation looking for and scouting for really young, attractive girls to join his “harem”. This example of hypergamous behavior is seen in the Islamic civilizations with the Sultans and the Caliphs. It was also seen in the Chinese Emperors and the Indian Maharajas. I remember reading this book years ago about how prevalent slavery has been throughout human history and read about how even 100 years ago, there was still a system of slavery in India. The landowners of a farm basically owned the farmers that tilled their fields. The young daughters of these slaver families would get systemically raped by the landowners and their sons and there would be nothing that can be done against them. This example shows that the landowners can act as mini-emperors of the piece of land that they own, which gets passed down from generation down to generation.

These dictators often made it their life’s goal to also always be at war or conflict with neighboring nations, although sometimes there would be a peace truce signed when it is obvious that both sides could not see a way to gain an overwhelming upper-hand in the conflict to tip the scale to their sides. War is a consistent element in human history. It often felt like there was always some battle or war that the young able bodied men in the society was forced into joining. Think Rome, Sparta, Persia, Greece. You read the history books on these societies and it seems like the overwhelming part of the textbooks on these societies is mainly for documenting dates and events of a battle or war. The ordinary, every day lives of Rome, Persia, and India are not recorded at all. We don’t remember the famous poets, astronomers, and engineers of these ancient civilizations but we do remember the conquerers, the rulers like Alexander the Great, Suleiman, Tamerlane, Cyrus the Great.

Nature in her infinite wisdom has a sort of hidden hand in getting the rulers of a nation to make sure that a certain percentage of young men, who technically is the abundance that nature has programmed into our genetic makeup will never mate or reproduce. They will be sent into the military at an early age of say 12 and then sent out to the front lines to go into battles. It is almost expected that these young boys who are just starting to go through puberty would have the excess testosterone will want to fight, rape, kill and they would actually desire to be in a warring state so that they can vent out their violent tendencies. Obviously a large group of these boys will die in battle. If the men in battle do win, they have satiated their battle blood lust, and maybe also be able to satiate their sexual lusts by “taking” the women of their opponent tribe. It is well established in almost all developed tribes throughout history that the army is almost only consist of just males and the females and the young children of the tribe are supposed to be left behind and spared if their tribe of men losses a confrontation. Only in very unique situations will the females of a tribe also take up arms and fight the incoming armies.

We live in the 21st century in a Western country where hypergamy is actually quelled down. This is a time of abundance, unlike centuries before. We are actually lucky. When I used to complain about my lack of dating success, I did not think in terms of the greater scale and see what is going on the more global scale. I was too focused on my own problems.

If we followed the natural law of our evolutionary design, a certain percentage of men would be systematically eliminated from the gene pool for each generation.

Let’s remember a recent article that was posted on sciencedaily.com that showed that basically of the European/White ethnic groups and people all seem to have come from 1 bronze age tribe leader. 99.999% of all the humans that could have ever existed in history did not.

Sometimes I read on the struggles and vents written on the online forums and discussion boards by short and socially awkward men on how difficult it is for them to find a girlfriend, wife, or get sex. I can now be comfortable in replying to their lamentations with the claim that if we were living even 500 years ago, they would probably have been killed off already because their conquest-lust kings and emperors would have sent them to the front line of war to fight for his glory and have gotten killed.

This concept that some men have developed in recent years called the “Red Pill” movement who talks about being “alpha” and how humans are evolutionarily programmed to be polygamous seemed that have missed the point. They got the overall idea right but took the wrong message from it.

Only the 1-10%, the top males of a society ever get the chance to be “alpha” or polygamous. Only the top 1-10% of men would attract more than his share of girls. The overwhelming percentage of men in any society will be bad with girls based on the fact that they were born into unlucky circumstances. If you are born to be short, ugly, or poor, you have very little chance of success. Only youth allows for the short, poor male to have a small sliver of opportunity to find a female to mate with. What I have noticed is that as females grow older, they start to put much more priority on the financial ability of a prospective male romantic partner as well as his genetic profile. Younger females have more leeway for men.

I remember reading when I was younger about the Dinka tribes of the Sudan. The Dinkas are well known to be particularly tall. When the first Europeans came and met the Dinka they noted quickly how all the men in the tribes were tall. However, they also noticed that the leaders of the tribes seemed to be taller than the average males of the tribes. This could be explained by the fact that the Dinkas subsist through raising Cattle. The cattle they have is what determines how rich they are. The tribal chiefs have the most cattle, and they drink the most milk from the cattle. In turn, not only do they become taller from their high consumption of oxen milk, they also have more “value” in the ideas of the women in that tribe. I am not sure whether these Dinka tribes are polygamous but I would not be surprised if they are, where the tribal leaders would have multiple wives. Since they have more wives, over time in each success generation, the average height of the tribe increases.

Hypergamy is indeed real, and it describes what happens for only a small percentage of men. At this point in my life, I can fully accept this idea that I am not in that small percentage of men who can have choice in finding a female mate in life to settle down with.

In the western countries currently, the society is based on a idea of tolerance and acceptance of people who would have been considered even 100 years ago to be “intrinsically” inferior. There would be a hug percentage of men who would never ever have a chance to have sex with a woman without paying for it.

That is why brothels and prostitutions have always existed. Prostitutes and escorts have a very important, critical job in each society. They are the ones that ultimately can control the urges of young restless men in their society. Any society that stigmatizes prostitution and makes it illegal is just going to make the overall society more unstable. If we look at older societies, the poorer couplings rarely ever had any formal wedding or ceremonies. Only the richer, more well off clans and families would have some type of large ceremony to celebrate the union of their families/clans. For the lower classes, they are left on their own and given no rules on how they get together.

This idea that there is a woman out there for each men is not true. It is mathematical fact that because of the 105/100 ratio and the recent peaceful era of human evolution which has not truncated the excess males in a society that at least 5% of the males of that society will never find a life partner to be with. They can still use their hard earned money to buy sex but the general society and the people in it will never accept the idea that it is okay for these “below-average” men should be married and fully accepted into society.

The poor young man who is short is expected to wait on his taller masters for his entire life and the best that he could hope for is to maybe catch the eye of the short girl female servant of the rich family and maybe couple with her and have children and hope of the best of the successive generation. The story of how Aladdin was able to catch the eye of the princess of the nation he lived in is based on fairy tale and myth, a one of a million occurrence. In fact, it required magic itself to give a poor humble street person like Aladdin to charm the princess. Women in a society rarely ever marry down, unless there is truly something very special about that particular man.

Let’s think about how during certain times of chaos and difficulty, the leaders of the society will try to promise their tribesmen that they will all get their share. When the Great Depression struck the USA after 1929, FDR came along and promised to the Americans that there will be a Chicken in each pot of every house. (Edit: turns out that particular quote was from FDR’s predecessor Herbert Hoover back in 1928. However the general idea is the same.) The USA was born out of certain ideals that are completely different from civilizations and tribes that have been around for much, much longer and suffered and grown cynical from the ravages of centuries of war with each other. If you talk to most people who come from a country in Asia or Africa, they would tell you that the ideals and values which the USA was born out of is “unrealistic”. Technically they are right. Equality is impossible. Some men will just get the short end of the stick.

For men who are born and grow up to be short, they are at a clear disadvantage. Height matters, and it matters big. We are actually not doing too bad. It could have been much worse for us. We might already be dead now and never even had a chance to kiss our first girl.

(Major Edit: The phenomena we currently see in China will only exacerbate the dating problem for young men of that country. The last we checked with the census bureau, the ratio for boy/girl was closer to 107/100, with that ratio being particularly bad in the rural areas. Decades of selective gender engineering and girl abortions will lead to a demographic problem that will not be fixed. Are chinese men getting desperate in their search for a girlfriend/wife? Do they ever blame their own parents or their cultures preference for sons for their dating woes? What can they do about this issue?

We need to remember this study performed a decade ago which showed that couple who are not well off in terms of resources would more likely have girls than boys. This seems to be again nature’s intelligence in realizing that females are much smarter, safer genetic investment than males during times of famine and difficulty. It makes me wonder about this: Since the entire world is becoming slowly more and more well off, does that mean that we are just going to naturally cause that boy/girl ratio to slide to become more scewed? Would that lead to more problems, or has the modern era of tolerance and abundance managed to quell the violent nature of humans enough?

So I’ve been hand clamping the proximal part of my finger and it looks like there may be some significant results.  I’d have to validate with x-rays.  Here’s the last finger clamping results.

So now I’m going to try a few things.  i’m going to clamp the proximal part of my finger once more.  And I’m going to start clamping my thumbs.  The left thumbs is a little bit longer than the right due to previous LSJL experimentation so I’m going to start clamping my right to see if I can get my right thumb equal and perhaps surpass my right.

I’ve also been hand clamping on my wrists, elbows, knees, and ankles.  There may be possible results or it could be mind trickery.  I’ll keep trying.  Hand clamping does seem to be working better than quick grip clamping possibly due to the fact it is more precise and you can feel the deformation of bone.

Below is comparison images of my right(hand clamped) versus left index finger.  They are aligned based on the middle lines of the finger due to the fact that it is much harder to align on the base of the finger.  Also is the before image of the thumbs.  I’ll start by clamping the medial joint of the right thumb.

Here is the last finger clamping results.  In that I was clamping the distal point of the right pinky finger and now I am clamping the medial region.  I have abondoned the pulling motion as it seemed to be more the hand clamping that was generating my results.  Now I’m still doing LSJL using the Irwin Quick Grip clamp and one of the areas I clamp includes my left index finger with the Irwin Quick Grip.  I have not seen the changes with the quick grip clamping that I have with hand clamping.

A number of people doing LSJL reported that they felt it was more effective to use your hands to manually generate pressure.  This may indicate that there may be a deficiency in the Irwin Quick Grip and that an alternative clamping method may be needed.  That will be something that I am exploring.

Right now I’m going to clamp the base of the proximal end of the finger like so:

Then I’ll see if I can pull out a little more growth.  There does seem to be some kind of conditioning effect where the body becomes more resistant to clamping.

Below is the progress pic.  I try to align based on the bottom based on the middle part of the finger because it’s extremely difficult to align based on where the proximal finger begins.  Now this image isn’t going to prove anything.  I’m going to need x-rays or a lot more significant growth.  I’ll see how the finger base clamping goes.

A recent food-based documentary I was watching on Netflix which was hosted by Anthony Bourdain on Colombia (Parts Unknown Season 1, Episode 3) made me start to wonder whether there was any correlation between living and growing up in different altitudes and its effect on stature. We know that Bourdain is a rather large man who is at least 6′ 4″, although he can look even 6′ 5″. In the show, when he was walking around the Colombian market places, he looked like an absolute giant compared to the local Colombians. That got me wondering.

I have noticed over the years the trend that people from the Andean Mountain regions, like Peru, Chile, and Bolivia were found to be quite small in stature, even relative to the regions and ethnic groups found in South America.

There was a famous story years ago about this mummified skeletal remains of an adult female who was said to be around 2-3 feet tall. I can’t find the source to this story on the internet. Maybe you guys the readers can find the story that I am talking about.

So I wanted to see whether that is any scientific studies that might verify this idea of mine that people who are born, grew up, and raised in geographic regions where it is of high altitude tend to be slightly shorter than people born, say, from a region that is at sea level.

A quick search on PubMed does reveal at least 3 studies which suggest this idea might be true.

1. The effect of high altitude on the growth of children of high socioeconomic status in Bolivia.
2. Effect of altitude on the physical growth of upper-class children of European ancestry.
3. The physical growth of urban children at high altitude.

The abstract from the first study does show that if a child was born, and lived their whole life in high elevation, at least in La Paz, Bolivia, they tend to be shorter than children who spent less time there.

The 2nd study says that the hypoxia (low oxygen levels) that is caused by the higher elevation can cause stunted growth within boys and girls of upwards of 3 cms on average.

The 3rd study says that children who lived in the city were found to be consistently taller than indigenious children who lived in the countryside in high altitudes. However these same children were found to be about the same height as children from Peru who lived in the cities who are at high altitudes. The rest of the abstract was difficult to figure out what were the conclusions they have reached.

I made a special to realize that all of these 3 studies done on mostly indigenious children in Bolivia was in the early 1980s, more than 30 years ago.

However the implications of these studies can still relevant.

If you wish for your children to maximize their growth potential, it might not be a wise decision for them to grow up in regions of high altitude.

From a physiological perspective, the only possible explanation on why children who are completely born and raised in high altitude regions come out shorter is because of the lower levels of oxygen that they gain.

In fact, since they are raise in regions with higher altitudes, the effect of gravity on them should be much less. Remember that water boils at a much lower temperature in high altitudes, instead of the usual 100 Degrees Celsius needed for the water molecules to overcome the 1 atm of atmospheric pressure.

If we were able to make the region full of oxygen that is saturated, I would guess that children who grew up in higher altitudes should in fact turn out taller.

Let’s remember still that the stereotypically tall ethnic group of the Dutch in the Netherlands live in a country that is very close to sea level. The Netherlands is half surrounded by water, and very low and close to sea level. Of course, that logic wouldn’t explain why people from Bangladesh, which is even more saturated and closer to sea level are not tall. So we can forget this argument.

There has been enough anecdotal evidence and studies that showed that the children who often grew the tallest are the ones who were raised in a suburban area, not urban or rural. They get the balance of good nutrition, healthcare, and great services from living close enough to the city/civilization, but also get the benefit of having the natural benefits of being close to nature, trees, fresher air and more oxygen, and better water.

However, if you are looking to see which group of children would end up as adults to be more stocky, with wider bodies and broader shoulders, it would be children who were born and raised in rural regions. I have personally noticed from my road trips through Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and other states in the Mid-West that white american children who grew up in places like Iowa, Nebraska, and similar type states turn out to be not just above average in height, but also very wide, and stocky.

The main takeaway from this post: It is most beneficial to raise one’s children closer to sea level, in a region that has plenty of nature, trees, oxygen, and water, in a suburban area, away from the city.

If you are a regular reader of the website, you guys might remember that I went to this Biomaterials, 3D-Printing, and Tissue Engineering type of conference last year held in Boston at the Wyndam around Oct, called the Organ-On-A-Chip Conference, which was the exact same place, and time for the Annual Termis Conference. Too bad I was not able to attend the Termis conference or I might have met Dr. Atala and Dr. Warren Grayson, who is a scientific advisor for EpiBone, the company which we should all be watching.

While I was at the conference, I met with all of the companies are are exhibiting. Given that this field is very small and micro-niche, there was very few companies represented there so it was easy to talk with each of the companies and really understand their technology. One of only dozen exhibitors was this Sweden based company selling this 3D-Printer injected Bio-Material which they called “BioInk”. There was 3 guys there, a father-son team, and a 3rd young man. Recently, they presented their work at another conference, the 251st National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

I knew the instant that I talked with them that their technology could be used to print out new cartilage tissue. In fact, their specific purpose was dedicated towards cartilage tissue. The father of the group I had forgotten the name of until today, when in the website ScienceDaily.com, apparently their technology is mentioned in an article. Refer to “3-D printing could one day help fix damaged cartilage in knees, noses and ears.” It seems that the world is finally taking notice to Dr. Paul Gatenholm’s research. Apparently he has a team based in the Wallenberg Wood Science Center in Sweden. I have never been to Sweden myself but if there is another Tissue Engineering or Stem Cell Conference in Sweden (or Leipzig, Germany) I will attend that one. One of the most famous stem cell research places in the world is the Karolinska Institutet. I have read so far 2 Ph. D from people who did their graduate school there on research which pertains to our objectives. I never knew or heard of this extremely prestigious medical research based university until I maybe just 2013.

While we would love their research to be for making hyaline cartilage, their focus right now is for cosmetic reasons, working with plastic surgeons to make ears and nose tissue which might have been damaged and removed due to cancers and tumors. Which does give me hope in realizing that they are willing to use this technology for cosmetic as well as medical applications.

Apparently their composition/formulation to create their BioInk is the following… “mixed polysaccharides from brown algae and tiny cellulose fibrils from wood or made by bacteria, as well as human chondrocytes, which are cells that build up cartilage”

Since I talked with him personally (as well as his son who was at the conference) which was back in Oct of just last year, 2015, it seems that they have pushed further in their research and so far done what I had predicted in previous posts. Here is what they have already accomplished.

1. They have figured out the right formulation combination to allow embedded chondrocytes and MSCs to survive in the culture medium.
2. They have successfully moved the research from the lab dish into a living system, lab mice right now.
3. The implanted tissue in the mice survived and actually turned into cartilage.
4. They took MSCs derived from human bone marrow and mixed with with the chondrocytes.
5. The result was a success in being able to multiply the number of chondrocytes, ie expand the cartilage tissue size volumetrically.
6. Both chondrocyte and cartilage production was stimulated
7. To make sure the jump into clinical trials (testing on humans) they have now found a plastic surgeon to consult with on what are the legal and regulatory steps to push forward.

Beyond just research, his company has found a cosmetic company they are partnering with to 3D-Print human skin tissue for probably grafts.

Here’s a study with more info on this The bio in the ink: cartilage regeneration with bioprintable hydrogels and articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells.

I was watching some short National Geographic type program on Youtube on Chimpanzees when the narrator started to talk about the noticeable differences between chimpanzees and bonobos. The thing that really struck out to me was the following picture. Notice that the Size Dimorphism is different between the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee species.

The picture is not that big, but you can see that when it comes to Chimpanzees, the difference between the female and the male is very large in terms of body size. Then we look at the bonobos. Relatively speaking, the difference between the females and males are much less. In fact, the male chimpanzee is actually on average taller than the male bonobo while the female chimpanzee is shorter than the female bonobos.

Then we can look at the structure of behavior between the two species. There is a well known stereotype that Chimpanzees are more likely to use violence to settle problems while Bonobos have sex to resolve conflicts. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRckXzNaQEQ)

Now lets look at the study “Body Size, Size Variation, and Sexual Size Dimorphism in Early Homo“. In the study, they stated that Pongos, Gorillas, and even our ancestors the Australopithecus all exhibited high levels of sexual size dimorphism. The writers wrote it very well when they said the following “…strong size dimorphism has been linked to sexual selection, and changes in size dimorphism imply significant changes in behavior and life history.”

Remember another stereotype, which is that bonobos is the other known primate which is known to have sex for pleasure and fun, not just for procreation, compared to chimpanzees. Sex when done for pleasure and gratification resolves conflict.

Let me just give a very superficial theory and let the readers think it over. Is it possible that the human kind’s obsession over height, and to judge which male is taller than the other, as a form of dominance, is something based on chimpanzee-like behavior and not bonobo? It was revealed to me that chimpanzee groups are usually much less than bonobos. Bonobo groups are larger than chimpanzee groups.

If we then look at gorillas, the size of each group doesn’t decrease, but the idea of there being a clear alpha-male gorilla is obvious from primatologists that have been studying gorillas for decades. In each gorilla group, you have one clear leader, which is often the largest male there. There will be other male gorillas in the group, but the large alpha-male gorilla get precedent when it comes to reproductive access. (Anyone ever watch the Return of the Planet of the Apes?) – Gorilla alpha males might sometimes be challenged by another male in the group. I have never studied gorilla group pattern myself but I would assume that if the other male wins in the fight, he can take over as leader of the tribe and gain sexual access.

What if a human tribe or ethnic group changed their behavior from solving conflict through war but through having sex? I predict that the there would be much less concern then of the men in trying to prove to themselves over size, as exhibited by the behavior of the bonobos. In fact, over time and the successive generations, the tribe which prefers sex over fighting will have the male’s height relative to the female’s height decrease over time.

Similarly, in cultures where men try too hard to exhibit their masculinity and use aggression and fighting to resolve conflict, the females in that tribe/group will look for men who are of the largest size, relatively speaking to the rest of the men there. Over time, that tribe will have a large size dimorphic variation. This is similar to what many of the modern men in the “Red Pill” community would call women are exhibiting Hypergamy based on looking for the “Alpha Male”. These women will only mate with or even  “settle” for men who have alpha type behavior as well as large in size. They might not always choose the tallest guy in their community (remember that broad shoulders is also key here) but they will settle for a guy who is very buff/muscular and with broad shoulders. This is where exercising by the male can work to his advantage, at least up to a certain point.

Since we can show from a clearly scientific perspective that the species of bonobos can exist and flourish just as well (if not better) than chimpanzee species, it suggests that we can as humans evolve to a different level of existence where war and fighting is not need, but using the power of sex and pleasure can resolve most human conflicts. We just need to get over our Puritanical viewpoints on sex, become more European with relaxed laws on prostitution.

Instead of believing that the only way the world works is where females always act through hypergamy looking for that single 1% tall, physically strong, violent, alpha male to have sex with to have that most ‘fit’ children, we can see that there is a 2nd option, one where the traditional sultan/harem approach can be changed to be more democratic. Societies based on the idea that a single male can horde hundreds of females as a group all for himself and not leaving any viable partners for the rest of the males in the society leads to obviously war, violent, and sexual dysfunctionality.

From the study we referenced earlier, it explicitly reveals the following… “Agonistic male-male competition for mates is predicted by sexual selection theory…Where males can monopolize access to receptive females to the exclusion of other males, competition resulting in male reproductive skew will ensure. Because body size helps males win contests and is heritable, selection should favor large male size….”

Being taller, usually means being stronger and larger. This translates from a competition, fighting pov to show that in societies and tribes where males horde females, then it makes sense larger men would be promoted more.

So can we build a society where competition is not promoted as highly, as well as sexual access is easily obtained, for pleasure reasons and not just for procreation?

The result would be the following…

1. Heightism will be severely reduced
2. Sexual dysfunction like rapes, fetishes, and perversions will decrease
3. Less stress overall for the society
4. Decreased violence by men
5. Decreased crime

In any society where competition is severe, and where resources are limited, heightism will exist. We look at places where there are either high population or high population density and they will be the places where discrimination of men on their height will be exhibited. If there was ever a tribe where short men were not discriminated on, it would most likely be in a society where male-male competition is discouraged, resources are relatively abundance, and sexual access is easy. Of course, we can look at places like Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands) which have all those things, but I still hear many cases by shorter men where they are severely discriminated against by females in the sexual selection process. Of course, we already know that men from Scandinavia is stereotypically among the tallest in the world.