Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 No, but the urge to enforce ownership of property is pretty universal in humanity and is likely rooted in our biological makeup. we always seem to have restrictions on sharing, depending on who the individuals are in question. Why is that? If you really want to explore it, start a thread. We protect our own property. Even a dog or lion will protect it's own territory. That's standard animal behavior. Organized legal and rule systems are different. That can be created to GO AGAINST biology because the rule is more logical and fair to everyone, and not just the strong survive and the weak suffer.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Monogamy is not the optimal reproductive strategy, it is for a woman, and it is for a man only in the sense that it is the most efficient in getting 1-10 kids to survive. The optimal reproductive strategy for a human male is still to have as many kids with as many women as possible. So even if most of the kids die then the man will still pass on more genes. Especially if that man is the leader of a tribe or a king and can afford it, and indeed Kings through history had Harems. If harems didn't exist we wouldn't have a name for them........ And as you note, they were notable, and rare, and restricted to a minority. 1) Very few men can afford to have 50 wives/concubines and 500 kids. It's unethical to let babies and single mothers die. Not to mention it's not effective. Children don't matter, grandchildren are all that matter. 2) If alpha males got all the women and your average guy got no women then that leads to social instability. Which makes he and his children less likely to survive in the long term. You're getting warmer.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 I think what he is saying is that there is a human monogamy is related to human evolution, that somewhere in our evolutionary history, it made more sense for us to become predominately monogamous. I am not sure that predominately monogamous necessarily precluded humans from having sex with other partners, but it most likely did involve long-term bonding and a long-term sexual relationship with primarily one partner. I honestly don't pretend to know everything about human evolution but based on what I do know, this seems like a fairly supportable position. I answered him when he finally gave a decent post address optimal mating strategy. I answered him. The optimal mating strategy for a strong male is to have as many offspring with as many women as possible, and indeed kings of the past did that. However, that's not seen as moral now, nor would it help social stability. Can you imagine if the President of the US had 50 women, and the average guy had none? Or wait........JKF........Bill Clinton......etc, etc. (They just do it behind closed doors and don't get the women preganant)
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Which makes he and his children less likely to survive in the long term. You're getting warmer. You're talking about I'm getting warmer as if you knew the optimal mating strategy. You don't......... That differs depending on the social climate and the situation. Monogamy in our modern situation is definitely the best simply because of the amount of schooling and time require to make a child competitive. That's why monogamy has grown. Throughout most of history it has not been, and hence why polygamy dominated. Monogamy tends to benefit the average male. Polygamy benefits stronger males. There are however more average males than stronger males, so of course in more advanced cultures the average males will demand monogamy. In primitie cultures where a leader can have a lower man executed was different.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Not to mention it's not effective. Children don't matter, grandchildren are all that matter. QUOTE] Again, you are only thinking in terms of modern times we are living in, and it explains why monogamy has grown. It's because we need to input a lot more resources into each child in modern society, for their education, and they in turn to their children. Stop thinking of what makes sense in modern times and applying it to all human evolutionary history.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 The optimal mating strategy for a strong male is to have as many offspring with as many women as possible, and indeed kings of the past did that. They did it and the social framework they lived in helped ensure the survival of their offspring without their personal intervention. If anything that's an argument for promiscuity as a reproductive strategy not being biological. There will be a certain number of opportunists in any group, but to take the leap that their existence proves the behavior of the majority is not based on the species reproductive biology seems far fetched.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Again, you are only thinking in terms of modern times we are living in, and it explains why monogamy has grown. Actually if anything modern easy life will probably tend to breed OUT monogamy if anything. We now have social structures in place that allow single mothers to survive like never before.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I think what he is saying is that there is a human monogamy is related to human evolution, that somewhere in our evolutionary history, it made more sense for us to become predominately monogamous. The available evidence seems to point that way. I'm not making any moral judgments here, just observing. If anything I think one could argue that social advancements and technology have enabled promiscuity as a viable reproductive strategy more than ever before. In the past men were loath to take on a single mother if they could avoid it, since that would mean they were expending their resources to further another mans genetic legacy. This would be sub-optimal and it's reasonable that those men would be less likely to pass on their own genes. The children that were abandoned by their fathers would be at a disadvantage, although some would survive.
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 The vast majority that score lower on the IQ scale find it quite taxing, indeed. Luckily, with your enormous intelligence, you can detect and understand sarcasm and irony like no other.
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 This: [snip] Looked to me like a response to this: [snip] Don't forget: this whole overly long and boring debate about the use of the word natural started with your own post: Perhaps you nave to examine what you mean by natural and choose a different word. I did not use the word natural and I didn't mention it in my own posts. So your request to me to choose a different word is nonsensical. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and 'collect your thoughts'.
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 the tendency to use a biological urge as an excuse for poor behavior is telling of someone's integrity and strength of will. Indeed. Excuses are generally a sign of weakness, not only in this case.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I did not use the word natural and I didn't mention it in my own posts. So your request to me to choose a different word is nonsensical. You can play word games all you like, but instead let me just rephrase the same question so we can move forward: Did you intend to answer my question, wherein I used the word natural, or did you make a mistake? If you made a mistake, fine. If not, then my assumption you intentionally answered my question was correct. So? Which is it?
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 You can play word games all you like, but instead let me just rephrase the same question so we can move forward: Did you intend to answer my question, wherein I used the word natural, or did you make a mistake? If you made a mistake, fine. If not, then my assumption you intentionally answered my question was correct. So? Which is it? For someone who so loudly proclaims his intelligence you require a surprisingly large amount of explanations. So I will explain it in detail a last time, in the hope you do understand it this time. You used the word 'natural' in your phrase, which I quoted as part of a larger excerpt from your post. You then request that I choose another word? This does not make sense. Which was what I was referring to. On a side-note, in that context, 'natural' is ill-defined anyway. Does it include effects of human culture? Or only genetic/biological explanation approaches? But this is just quarreling about words, and not very interesting. The important point is that, in the original post, you state that there is predilection for monogamy, an 'overwhelming prevalence' of monogamy. This is clearly not the case. You base your post on invalid assumptions. It doesn't even matter if 'natural' is the correct word, because the rest of the post invalidates itself.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 For someone who so loudly proclaims his intelligence you require a surprisingly large amount of explanations. As denoted by the question mark (?) in English, I asked one question, which you quoted. You then offered an answer. I think a reasonable person would conclude they were meant to be related, I know I did. If you didn't want to talk about the subject matter of the question why quote it and answer? That is the source of the confusion. If you don't like the word natural, fine, my initial response was in fact an invitation for you to provide a more suitable word. You then got all grumpy about the word 'natural'. Humorously enough, I wasn't even addressing you in the original question.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 This is clearly not the case. Show me a functional enduring society where promiscuity was the preferred model for reproduction. Better, show me 5 so we know it wasn't a fluke. I don't think you will be able to, although I would accept an argument that we are moving that direction NOW as potentially reasonable. Rather we see mostly monogamy, some limited polygyny, and almost nothing else, particularly if we don't pretend the lifestyle of a monarch is the definition of normal for any given society.
Thornton Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Mating is biological. Cheating is not. Cheating is a learned behaviour. I would argue that both mating and cheating are biological behaviours. Choosing not to cheat is a learned behaviour... in not cheating you are, in effect, resisting your own biological urges.
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Show me a functional enduring society where promiscuity was the preferred model for reproduction. Better, show me 5 so we know it wasn't a fluke. I don't think you will be able to, although I would accept an argument that we are moving that direction NOW as potentially reasonable. I will ignore your attempt to change the topic by inserting 'preferred mode of reproduction' and just answer the rest of the post... So, which society is not monogamous? Err...almost any? Just because there is an ideal of monogamy doesn't mean people actually adhere to it. Even in countries where sexual exclusivity is enforced by penalty of death, people cheat all the time. And in western culture, up until the victorian age, marriage was a primarily economic institution (and still is for some people), and sexual exclusivity was not such an integral part of marriage as it is today. Not only kings had concubines. Again, you seem to mix up the ideals the masses were told to live by, and the actual reality of what happened.
Trialbyfire Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I would argue that both mating and cheating are biological behaviours. Choosing not to cheat is a learned behaviour... in not cheating you are, in effect, resisting your own biological urges.Lying and deceit are not biological behaviours. These are learned behaviours. Mating is a biological behaviour.
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I will ignore your attempt to change the topic by inserting 'preferred mode of reproduction' and just answer the rest of the post... So, which society is not monogamous? Err...almost any? Sex is, lest we forget, for reproduction. It happens to be fun because it's biologically advantageous for it to be so but deep down when we get it on there is a specific survival goal being satisfied. Reproduction. Attempted reproduction at least. Moving on ... If you define any society where 1 act of infidelity occurs as "not monogamous" then of course you can pretend monogamy is an exception in human history. That would be like being unable to find a safe airline and deciding air travel is risky because somewhere someone died on their airplane. The horror of it. The fact is that no human civilization has utilized wanton promiscuity as a primary means of procreation and survived. Why? It doesn't suit our biological limitations. Children need care for an extended period. Now we have welfare and birth control, so who knows what is a good fit biologically. Observations suggests the current optimal solution is maybe a Mexican woman on American welfare but I have nothing other than future demographic predictions to back it up.
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 If you define any society where 1 act of infidelity occurs as "not monogamous" then of course you can pretend monogamy is an exception in human history. 1 act of infidelity doesn't amount to ~10% of 'cuckoo' children. The fact is that no human civilization has utilized wanton promiscuity as a primary means of procreation and survived. Why? It doesn't suit our biological limitations. Human civilization started with agriculture and exists for maybe 8000 years, humans for about 200'000. When talking about the influence of genes on sexual exclusivity (aka 'cheating is biological' in vernacular), limiting ourselves to only this period does not make much sense. Of course, culturally, the changes have been enormous in the last few thousand years - but then we're back at the nature vs. nurture debate
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Human civilization started with agriculture and exists for maybe 8000 years, humans for about 200'000. So you're asserting that prehistoric humans behaved in a vastly different manner than those we have a history for?
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 So you're asserting that prehistoric humans behaved in a vastly different manner than those we have a history for? No, we share very similar genetic material. Hence why despite rules and pressure against cheating, we're still doing it anyway. Our primitive behavior is still coming out.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 If you define any society where 1 act of infidelity occurs as "not monogamous" then of course you can pretend monogamy is an exception in human history. That would be like being unable to find a safe airline and deciding air travel is risky because somewhere someone died on their airplane. The horror of it. The fact is that no human civilization has utilized wanton promiscuity as a primary means of procreation and survived. Why? It doesn't suit our biological limitations. Children need care for an extended period. Now we have welfare and birth control, so who knows what is a good fit biologically. Observations suggests the current optimal solution is maybe a Mexican woman on American welfare but I have nothing other than future demographic predictions to back it up. yeah well 1 act of infidelity would be a bad example. WHEN 50% of PEOPLE CHEAT, is that a bad example? Again you keep saying children need extended periods of care, and again I tell you that's what happens in the modern world where each child needs so much attention. Hence why monogamy makes sense in our modern world. For the last quarter of a milliong years humans did not need to put the same amout of energy into each child. Hence polygamy was the optimal strategy.
lkjh Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Hizzle, you don't seem to realize that sex is biological, not cheating.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Hizzle, you don't seem to realize that sex is biological, not cheating. Utterer of worded it much better: "However, sexual non-exclusivity in humans has been the standard behavior for most of human existence" Humans are not naturally designed to stay with one person, at least not for a lifetime. The natural design is for a few years with one person at best. That's why the divorce rate is so high, and that's why people cheat, and relationships that last longer than that need work (generally) Sad but true. You might not believe that, but that's why things happen the way they do, it's impossible for 50% of the population to go against the force of nature even with social conditioning. For those that do want to go against nature, they need to use willpower and self control. That's higher thought process, it's not a primal drive.......
Recommended Posts