utterer of lies Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 So you're asserting that prehistoric humans behaved in a vastly different manner than those we have a history for? Agriculture changed everything. Having to take care of the farm and the same fields all year made long-term marriage-like relationships important, because stable families were required to stay together at one place for a long time, and child-rearing was the job of the (extended) family. In non-sedentary groups, all the children were together all the time, rearing them was a job for the tribe. There was no need for the distribution of the population over such distances as there is with population living from agriculture. The whole group would stay and move together. Relationships between man and woman that weren't for life did not not endanger the food source as it might on a farm. So, yes, the change to agriculture that 'started' human civilization had a huge impact.
lkjh Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Hizzle, you keep saying things with out actually backing them up. First off we don't know that 50% if the world cheats, we know that 50% of the WESTERN world divorce's. We do not have clear information on how many people actually cheat. I can assure you that in other parts of the world(parts were we don't have television and trashy novels encouraging cheating) cheating happens far less. Our soceity like many others in the past has gotten spoiled, and we are now very "civilized". We do many things that encourage cheating, like getting drunk with out our spouses(alcohol is man made), every single womens coming of age novel now encourages cheating, lifetime network has at least one movie on a day that makes cheating seem like the greatest thing ever, we encourage our spouses to have friends of the opposite sex and demonize people who think this is wrong. As a society we are doing things against our nature, things that harm our future. We do things that encourage us to cheat, sex is biological not all of the above. The second thing you don't back up is the fact that you have yet given one real scientific journal(it would take a lot more than one to make it fact) that proves with out a doubt that cheating is biological. All you really have is a social theory. Your word is not good enough If you really want proof that cheating goes against our nature than take a look at what it does. Cheating destroys the family unit, the same unit that protects and brings up children. Since the 1960's divorce and cheating have been on the rise and the youth of western countries have been falling. Every year we have more social problems and every year we seem to get more stupid. Go across any engineering school in the country and I guarantee that over half of the grad students are foreign, and usually from non-western countries. Our youth can not handle it any more and it is simply because of our up-bringing. Something that is universally biological does not inhibit our growth. It goes against everything we know, and it goes against a much more popular theory.........natural selection All you know is that sex is biological and from there you have come up with a SOCIAL THEORY, unfortunately you think your idea is 100% fact. I don't mean to disappoint you but please don't expect the noble prize anytime soon
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Hizzle, you keep saying things with out actually backing them up. First off we don't know that 50% if the world cheats, we know that 50% of the WESTERN world divorce's. We do not have clear information on how many people actually cheat. I can assure you that in other parts of the world(parts were we don't have television and trashy novels encouraging cheating) cheating happens far less. Our soceity like many others in the past has gotten spoiled, and we are now very "civilized". We do many things that encourage cheating, like getting drunk with out our spouses(alcohol is man made), every single womens coming of age novel now encourages cheating, lifetime network has at least one movie on a day that makes cheating seem like the greatest thing ever, we encourage our spouses to have friends of the opposite sex and demonize people who think this is wrong. As a society we are doing things against our nature, things that harm our future. We do things that encourage us to cheat, sex is biological not all of the above. The second thing you don't back up is the fact that you have yet given one real scientific journal(it would take a lot more than one to make it fact) that proves with out a doubt that cheating is biological. All you really have is a social theory. Your word is not good enough If you really want proof that cheating goes against our nature than take a look at what it does. Cheating destroys the family unit, the same unit that protects and brings up children. Since the 1960's divorce and cheating have been on the rise and the youth of western countries have been falling. Every year we have more social problems and every year we seem to get more stupid. Go across any engineering school in the country and I guarantee that over half of the grad students are foreign, and usually from non-western countries. Our youth can not handle it any more and it is simply because of our up-bringing. Something that is universally biological does not inhibit our growth. It goes against everything we know, and it goes against a much more popular theory.........natural selection All you know is that sex is biological and from there you have come up with a SOCIAL THEORY, unfortunately you think your idea is 100% fact. I don't mean to disappoint you but please don't expect the noble prize anytime soon IKJH, Trust me, when I was naive and wanted to believe in the glorious nature of man, I too believed in exactly what you say. I actually changed my way of thinking because: 1) Too many people cheat for it to be socially imposed on us. In fact if cheating was wrong and we are not biologically enclined to do it then there would be behavioral inhibitors to stop us from doing it. Why people feel pain if rejected by someone they love, or fear commiting suicide are such behavioral inhibitors. The inhibitor against cheating is not behavioral. It's moral. I know because when I'm dating I feel like flirting with other women and have to consciously tell myself not to. You can also see it here with so many posters. They instinctively cheat then feel bad about it. 2) The science behind cheating (lets call it sexual non exclusivity because utterer of lies put it a much better way) that supports it being biological is much more compelling. I was like you. If we were both religious and wanted to believe in ideal theories I was in your camp. I rejected that camp because logic is more important to me than believing that humans are righteous in areas where they are not. As for your points....... 1) I already said, it's too friggin time consuming to look up studies in detail for you. Whilst it's nice to have casual debate, I don't find it fun to spend hours to dig up studies for a stranger. But I did look at the back of the Red Queen and he did cite over 200 studies, so why don't you look at those? If I was indeed working for a noble prize. Of course the least I could do is cite some studies. But to spend 3-4 hours digging them up for you? 2) We don't have clear information for how many people cheat. Stats are all over the place. All we know it's a hell of a lot! Especially WHEN SOCIETY SAYS ITS WRONG! Just showing something doesn't mean it's encouraged. Novels and movies show murder as well........When the hell does society say murder is right? 3) If civilized is what encourages cheating, then why is there cheating recorded in EVERY human society throughtout history? Even in Iraq I was reading an interesting article the other day about how prostitution is through the roof. That's an Islamic country as well......Who pays for that sex? "As a society we are doing things against our nature, things that harm our future." I will just focus on one statement of yours which shows why you have such a tough stance. Your stance doesn't come from science. It comes from your need to believe humans are good, that our nature is good. When we do bad things, it's against out nature......... How naive! We're friggin animals! Our genetic similarity to a chimp is 99%! When we do harm our future it's generally because we're selfish animals, and when we learn to fight against it, it's because we're smart. I would rather think of it that way.........we're evil and need to control it. You think..........we're good and learn to be bad.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 The urge to screw someone other than the one you made promises to may be "biological," but the choice is consciously made. End of story. Exactly. Not a very hard concept to understand. The people that can't understand it, can't not because of sound logic or science, but because they have a preconceived notiong about the goodness of the nature of mankind.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 The thing is, though, is that some people may allow the initial thought of "wow, is he/she ever good looking" to continue on down a path that will eventually lead to "I really wanna screw that person!" I firmly believe the decision is made PRIOR to the second quoted phrase above to allow your urges to take over or not. I mean, what are we? Amoeba? That of course is true as well, but many people don't realize our biology simply creates urges or initial drives. For example, if I want to lose weight and I feel hunger and there's chocolate cake in the fridge. I'm not a zombie that automatically goes and gets the cake. My hunger then initiates a chain of conscious actions to satisfy it. Same with the temptation to get with someone else whilst already with someone. The urge exists because of biology and then I can fight it. That's why there's a word in every language which describes the concept of WILLPOWER.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 In non-sedentary groups, all the children were together all the time, rearing them was a job for the tribe. ... So, yes, the change to agriculture that 'started' human civilization had a huge impact. So you have proof of this society where there were no families, or is it based on faith?
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 So you have proof of this society where there were no families, or is it based on faith? Look at apes.........
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 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. Malarky. If anything monogamy is a leftover appendix due to the extreme effort it used to take to keep a family alive long enough for them to have a chance to survive on their own. Nowadays if you're born alive you have a better chance than at any time in history of staying that way long enough to reproduce. 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. First, you keep saying polygamy. Polygamy is not cheating. Also, polygamy is vanishingly rare, and as I've noted is generally manifested as a very limited form of polygyny. The limit is naturally occurring simply because there is a limit to how many offspring a single man can provide for. Promiscuity (AKA cheating) is not and never has been a successful majority reproductive strategy.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Look at apes......... So looking at spiders proves we actually reproduce by the 1000s of eggs and consume our mother? Human societies please.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Malarky. If anything monogamy is a leftover appendix due to the extreme effort it used to take to keep a family alive long enough for them to have a chance to survive on their own. Nowadays if you're born alive you have a better chance than at any time in history of staying that way long enough to reproduce. We don't just aim to survive now. We want MTV, and a nice car. First, you keep saying polygamy. Polygamy is not cheating. Also, polygamy is vanishingly rare, and as I've noted is generally manifested as a very limited form of polygyny. The limit is naturally occurring simply because there is a limit to how many offspring a single man can provide for. Promiscuity (AKA cheating) is not and never has been a successful majority reproductive strategy. If you remove the social construct and semantic, polygamy and cheating are part of the same thing. Trying to get multiple sex partners...... That's why I keep saying Utterer of lies puts it better when he doesn't refer to cheating and rather we're not sexually exclusive as a species. AND WE'RE NOT BECAUSE IF WE ARE, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 So looking at spiders proves we actually reproduce by the 1000s of eggs and consume our mother? Human societies please. Show's you have zero understanding of genetics and how genetic similarities branch out like a tree, and how we have only about 10 million years of a brach off from many ape species and therefore share many similar behaviors. Spiders are slightly more diastant genetically.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 We don't just aim to survive now. We want MTV, and a nice car. And our genes don't care. If you remove the social construct and semantic, polygamy and cheating are part of the same thing. No, promiscuity implies lack of paternal commitment to provide, completely different from a survival standpoint. The systems that work also impose family structure.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Show's you have zero understanding ... Is this your shorthand for saying "Well, yes it's my belief based on faith and I've got no proof"?
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 And our genes don't care. You're right, our genes don't and that's why your BS theory about monogamy growing because of our genes is BS. Monogamy has grown not because of our genes, but because of social pressures. Just like how we have fewer kids in developed countries. No, promiscuity implies lack of paternal commitment to provide, completely different from a survival standpoint. The systems that work also impose family structure. You're not even making sense on this one now..........
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Is this your shorthand for saying "Well, yes it's my belief based on faith and I've got no proof"? No, it shows you have zero understanding. See if I compare two spider species and you sudddenly said........well apes have only an offspring a year instead of 100! I'll think comparing the two is stupid. See now how stupid it is once I flip it around?
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Is this your shorthand for saying "Well, yes it's my belief based on faith and I've got no proof"? In other words........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae Humans are in the Hominidae family. They share similar characteristics! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_taxonomy A spider is should a broad category I could be talking about two spiders and they might not even be in the same family.....
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Here's my opinion, for whatever that's worth. Monogamy, despite what people say to the contrary, benefits the male in terms of reproduction. Females always know the child they carry is theirs. Males can never be sure. Thus to make it more likely fathers are spending resources feeding children that carry their genes promiscuity has to be limited. Men also have other nifty talents that help with this, for instance research shows men are much better at picking their own kids faces out of a crowd than women are. Pretty handy to be able to recognize which kids are yours in some contexts I guess, from a reproductive standpoint. Male promiscuity is a predictable minority and opportunistic strategy that relies on the majority being in stable family units, enabling the bastards to survive. Female promiscuity is less clear to me but I suspect simple genetic diversity in her offspring probably confers some survival advantage as long as her relationship with her provisioner is not endangered. Obviously if this happens it would incur a survival disadvantage. Upshot being, it's ALL biologically driven, every bit, including monogamy.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 You're right, our genes don't and that's why your BS theory about monogamy growing because of our genes is BS. No, our genes don't care if JR has a Playstation, they DO care if JR fathers kids, who have kids, who have kids, etc. Luxury is irrelevant, but fecundity coupled with survival is entirely relevant.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I'll think comparing the two is stupid. Don't get distracted, I asked for a successful human society where promiscuity was the primary means of reproduction and I get apes. In a self proclaimed 200,000 year history, the best someone can do is "apes".
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Don't get distracted, I asked for a successful human society where promiscuity was the primary means of reproduction and I get apes. In a self proclaimed 200,000 year history, the best someone can do is "apes". Go to wiki and pull up polygamy, and you get........ Legal status of polygamyRecognized under civil lawAfghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Brunei Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad CAR Comoros Congo Djibouti Egypt Gabon The Gambia India1 Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania Morocco Myanmar Niger Oman Pakistan Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Senegal Singapore1 Somalia Sri Lanka1 Sudan Syria Tanzania Togo Uganda UAE Western Sahara Yemen Zambia According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[2] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. Note A LOT MORE frequent polygamous societies. Too bad you don't know that because your own world and world view is a mongamous one. I would add it occurs rarely because you got to be friggin rich to keep several wives. But cheating............oh that's a lot cheaper.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Here's my opinion, for whatever that's worth. Monogamy, despite what people say to the contrary, benefits the male in terms of reproduction. Females always know the child they carry is theirs. Males can never be sure. Thus to make it more likely fathers are spending resources feeding children that carry their genes promiscuity has to be limited. Men also have other nifty talents that help with this, for instance research shows men are much better at picking their own kids faces out of a crowd than women are. Pretty handy to be able to recognize which kids are yours in some contexts I guess, from a reproductive standpoint. Male promiscuity is a predictable minority and opportunistic strategy that relies on the majority being in stable family units, enabling the bastards to survive. Female promiscuity is less clear to me but I suspect simple genetic diversity in her offspring probably confers some survival advantage as long as her relationship with her provisioner is not endangered. Obviously if this happens it would incur a survival disadvantage. Upshot being, it's ALL biologically driven, every bit, including monogamy. You need to read the RED Queen and sperm wars. They go into a lot more detail over several chapters as to the best optimal mating strategies and why. But in brief. If you are an alpha male you don't need to consciously know if a child is yours for one. As long as you mate enough and some of the kids survive they will pass on that polygamous behavior to their kids as well. Mongamy is more important to average males. To ensure they can actually get a woman in the first place, and watch over the female. You keep ignoring my arguements on the status of the male, and no, it's not just about kings. I use that as an extreme example, because given the chance, kings will opt for thousands of women. Have you read the above books? If not I suggest you do so since you have all these theories of your own.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Anyway, the differing strategies and how they benefit alpha males and normal males is why both polygamy and monogamy works for humans. Whilst monogamy with cheating is actually the most optimal strategy in the human species for passing on genes. That is........to cheat but not to get cheated on.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. Note A LOT MORE frequent polygamous societies. Note that they still are not based on uncontrolled promiscuity. Not one. Hmmm.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Note that they still are not based on uncontrolled promiscuity. Not one. Hmmm. Define uncontrolled........ Besides, even if 4 wives is a rule and not infinity, that still puts a huge hole in your idea that one is the best. You still didn't tell me if you read those books or not. They'll give a much more detailed explanation than I can here.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 You need to read the RED Queen and sperm wars. They go into a lot more detail over several chapters as to the best optimal mating strategies and why. Read 'em, wasn't convinced. Anything original to add?
Recommended Posts