I believe that hairloss is evolutionarily adaptive and not some genetic defect.

[Unhuman]

TLDR: hair is vector for infections, by going bald your decreasing the chance of infection.

This theory isn't perfect however it makes sense when you look at it from the perspective of genetic trade offs. Having high T (and thus DHT) levels are very costly because T is immunosuppressive therefore shedding of hair may be a way for the body to compensate for having a weaken immune system.

 

[Deleted member 20565]

 

[Need2Ascend]

High dht is a subhuman degenerate trait. The epitome of masculinity is high T with low conversion to dht and estrogen

 

[Deleted member 18320]

Hopefully stacy understands your theory
Its ovER

 

[Jpg]

Trash hormone DHT

 

[Unhuman]

View attachment 1806421

Why is it coping when other forms of alopecia are literally immuno reactions? I'm theorising that androgenic alopecia might be caused by the same mechanism.

 

[Unhuman]

Hopefully stacy understands your theory
Its ovER

 

[Gandy]

All kinds of body hair are purely ornamental for humans not living in harsh winter climates. There is no function to them.

Going bald is just an unlucky genetic mutation (dihydrotestosterone oversensitivity). There is no reason to it.
But it doesn't make the bearer ugly enough to stop them from procreating.

Women have previously been forced to marry all kinds of ugly men due to financial reasons (for centuries and thousands of years).

The recent preference for good looking men, full haired men etc. is only a few decades old and still doesn't apply in a lot of developing countries where women are forced to choose a balding ugly man 25 years older than themselves, over a chad their own age.

So bald guys will still live on Earth for quite a while. They aren't going anywhere because baldness is not being bred out. It doesn't make the bearer repulsive enough to stop them from procreating. Besides aesthetics, there are no significant downsides to being bald.

Balding genes will continue to propagate for a long, long time. As long as there are golddiggers who will choose money over looks.

 

[varbrah]

Consider also balding wasn’t as large of a handicap for archaic humans with robust facial bones

 

[stevenashbaby]

You are correct OP. Or it’s atleast greatly exacerbated by our environment, particularly shitty western diets. Theres plenty of studies showing mpb is correlated with metabolic syndrome, weaker immune systems, heart disease, etc.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

You clearly don't understand how evolution works. Men start balding at 30-40, while prehistoric humans had kids as soon as they hit puberty. It was (and still is for the most part) evolutionarily irrelevant.

 

[Unhuman]

You clearly don't understand how evolution works. Men start balding at 30-40, while prehistoric humans had kids starting at around 13. It was (and still is for the most part) evolutionarily irrelevant.

I see but evolution has also sped up post agriculture.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

I see but evolution has also sped up post agriculture.

So what? 99% of people since then have had kids before the age that they would start to go bald. It's only recently that it's been mainstream to wait until 35 to have kids.

 

[Unhuman]

So what? 99% of people since then have had kids before the age that they would start to go bald. It's only recently that it's been mainstream to wait until 35 to have kids.

I can not verify this but I believe you since you are an honest man of God.