More sexual/sociobiology fallout. ""Not all males, of course, are admirable,"" says Robert Wallace, visiting scholar in the zoology department at Duke University, ""Some are 'better' than others."" And so we go once more around the track, touting what Wallace calls the Reproductive Imperative. Everything, it appears, is done for the sake of sex--understanding that sex is for the sake of reproductive advantage. . . gene investment. . . chromosomal perpetuity. It follows that that is why you love your children, why men are promiscuous but women are cool, why you are moral and altruistic, why you grow old and die. Throw in a few chapters on the IQ controversy and male-female brain differences, and a recent history of ethology, psychology, sociobiology, and you have it: the standard canon done with greater depth by others (Symons, The Evolution of Human Sexuality, p. 926). Wallace adds a last chapter called ""Change,"" however, in which he demonstrates a need to put the (cultural) rabbit back into the (biological) hat. We have wrought enormous changes in the planet, he says, and we are in imminent danger of suicide (in spite of all those forces which make us act as if our genes were at stake). We must take steps to control, redirect, displace, etc., our simplistic attitude that life is a winners and losers game. One way to do this is through strong punitive government, so as to maintain peace at home and vigilance abroad. Another example of Wallace's doublethink: he says first that the biological importance of the family unit makes adultery and rape sins, and later legitimizes male promiscuity as genetically advantageous. Dispensable on all grounds.