[Withano]

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

No, I think deep down they want to be because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

Originally Posted by Withano

No, I think deep down they want to be (monogamous*) because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

I honestly think we're on a similar thinking line. I just think humans are inherently polyamarous, but go against this for multiple reasons. I too believe that we will revert back to this state if needed to, unlike swans and lions who would keep their status forevz, regardless of any potential drastic environmental changes.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

I honestly think we're on a similar thinking line. I just think humans are inherently polyamarous, but go against this for multiple reasons. I too believe that we will revert back to this state if needed to, unlike swans and lions who would keep their status forevz.

Actually lions are more like humans than we think. The women raise the kids and sorts out the food while the man lays around on the Serengeti, scratching himself...........

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

Hmmm not necessarily; genetic diversity is evolutionarily good for us and genetic diversity is directly impacted by "alpha male social construct" given the way our society is set up. If we're talking basic animal instincts... the strongest and smartest male around would be doing all of the mating. However, the result is that the majority of offspring are then coming from one genetic source (one alpha) reducing diversity and increasing abnormalities. Also, given that evolution is not deliberately selective (common myth is that evolution = improvement) but is ONLY about being best adapted to environment... there are plenty of ways to argue that life monogamy - or at the very least, serial monogamy (which is actually what most people practice) - is actually an evolutionary advantage for humans.

But anyway... that doesn'tt really even matter. To go back to the point before; the human mind has evolved to the point of abstract / philosophical thought, appreciation of personality and "the individual", which makes us entirely unique (again, on earth, there are probably plenty of emo aliens out there)... and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans".


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans".


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

Well yeah, I'd have to talk about a parallel universe really, because I can't explain it with who we currently are after that millenia of abstract thinking, and wedding ceremonies, and disney.

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.