????? I'm talking about the above claim men are "designed for survival", not whatever the heck you think we are talking about.
I like how humans have existed for 300,000 years, have 5,000 years of recorded history, and you think your ability to name explorers is a data point on who survives better on earth, or something?
No, they die far more often. Because they enter unknown risky situations.
Humans explore in search of new lands and resources, and in search of safe paths.
When they take the more vulnerable members of the tribe, they generally have a better idea of where they're going, what the path is, and what risks are involved.
If a path is too dangerous then they don't tend to take pregnant women and small children.
So because it is primarily adult or adolescent males that go on the more risky adventures, they're the ones that have the costly adaptations required to maximise the likelihood of survival.
> So no, I would not say men are "designed" to survive on an island better than women, or whatever. They are designed to fight other men in a zero sum game.
False dichotomy. Also, what fraction of explorers do you think were men? Pretty much fucking all of them.
We don't get pregnant, so having children is not a physical inconvenience and (as I mentioned elsewhere) half of us can die without impacting the next generation's population.
If you think that men and women had the same evolutionary imperative to develop the skills required for navigating strange environments then you're not adequately considering the innumerable trade-offs involved.