The monogamy instinct within humans

[HydrogenBond]

One groups of genetic hardware emulations required by the mind/brain to support promiscuity are associated with STD's. These result from certain reproductive behavior and increase in odds as we shift to increasing promiscuity.

 

Most humans do not have natural genetic hardware to generate the software emulation within the immune system to deal with these diseases, especially AIDS. Science, which is mind/brain has to create hardware emulation (medicines) to extend the natural genetic immune system to deal with these.

 

If we took away all such hardware emulation associated with the natural genetic immune system, as well as mind/brain prevention behavior not in genetics, monogamy may not even notice the difference, since it does not require as much hardware support. Promiscuity on the other hand, which has a higher hardware emulation requirement would creates a paradox for itself.

 

Human promiscuity, although increasing genetic diversity, which is good for genetics, will also create STD's, which have the potential to make the same healthy genetic specimens sickly, due to negative hardware emulation created by the STD's. The same negative hardware emulation can also be passed on to the unborn and undermine the natural genetic advantages of the offspring stemming from the induce genetic diversity.

 

Monogamy is not purely genetic instinct, in my opinion, since it also has a mind/brain connection. However, because it has a lower emulation requirement, it is closer to natural, at least for humans. This may be different for other animals, who don't have the same level of willful mind/brain influence on genetic hardware and software emulation to create unbalanced genetic cycles that need additional brain/mind requirement.

[InfiniteNow]

Monogamy is not purely genetic instinct, in my opinion

 

Instinct is, by definition, genetic. Am I the only one who thinks strange claims continues to beckon?

[Kriminal99]

Jealously seems to have conferred selective benefit. You should check out the work of David Buss, specifically, his text "The Dangerous Passion." Covers this issue quite well.

 

If I read every potentially poorly reasoned argument someone directed me to I would have a lot less free time on my hands for next to no increase in knowledge. No doubt what you say is true in some regard - since without jealousy more capable animals would sit by while less capable ones mated.

 

But these issues are far less signifigant when considering intelligent beings. If there is any major measure of capability among us, it is iq / complex reaction time. But this has already been correlated with lower rates of reproduction. So, even if IQ helps wins disputes over mates, it doesn't help society as a whole. If a capable mate is sought after and won by someone with a high IQ, they are less likely to mate thus wasting the capabilities of the person sought after.

[Boerseun]

One groups of genetic hardware emulations required by the mind/brain to support promiscuity are associated with STD's. These result from certain reproductive behavior and increase in odds as we shift to increasing promiscuity.

STD's are merely tiny little animals who found a particular niche very handy and evolved to fit into it very nicely, thank you very much. Which, of course, means that if species of organisms have evolved to fit a niche (in this case, human reproductive parts) it clearly means than humans are not monogamous. And that humans have not been monogamous for a long, long time.

Most humans do not have natural genetic hardware to generate the software emulation within the immune system to deal with these diseases, especially AIDS. Science, which is mind/brain has to create hardware emulation (medicines) to extend the natural genetic immune system to deal with these.

 

If we took away all such hardware emulation associated with the natural genetic immune system, as well as mind/brain prevention behavior not in genetics, monogamy may not even notice the difference, since it does not require as much hardware support. Promiscuity on the other hand, which has a higher hardware emulation requirement would creates a paradox for itself.

Okay, I think I'm following what you're saying, what with all these metaphors and such, but the mere existence of STDs should be enough evidence to show that there is no such thing as a "monogamy instinct".

Human promiscuity, although increasing genetic diversity, which is good for genetics, will also create STD's, which have the potential to make the same healthy genetic specimens sickly, due to negative hardware emulation created by the STD's. The same negative hardware emulation can also be passed on to the unborn and undermine the natural genetic advantages of the offspring stemming from the induce genetic diversity.

First off, human promiscuity will not create STDs. It will, however, create an environment for the trasnmission of existing STDs.

Second, I think you missed me a bit with the metaphors there. Or I'm just a bit slow today.

Monogamy is not purely genetic instinct,

Monogamy is not an instinct at all. At best, monogamy is learned behaviour - a cultural thing. And the prevalence of STDs should show that humans don't seem to give a rip about learned behaviour either, when it comes to matters of T&A.

However, because it has a lower emulation requirement, it is closer to natural, at least for humans.

How on earth can you reach this conclusion?

 

Consider the following: There is a gene for monogamy. There is a gene for polygamy. Which one, after a thousand generations, would you think have won?

 

If there were such genes (which there aren't), then it should be glaringly obvious that the poligamous gene would be closer to the "natural" state, because it would leave the most offspring and spread through the genepool much quicker and much more efficiently.

This may be different for other animals, who don't have the same level of willful mind/brain influence on genetic hardware and software emulation to create unbalanced genetic cycles that need additional brain/mind requirement.

Sex (the maker and breaker of which genes get to the next generation) don't give a hoot about will or brain influence. Sex, sex signals, the visual sex signals, the smelling of pheromones, all of these things speak directly to the R-complex in your brain. It speaks to your inner reptile, and there is very little the rest of your brain can do about it once the R-complex gets all jiggy 'n stuff. On the instinct to have sex when all the parameters are filled, humans differ very little from, say, chickens.

 

I have to say that I'm beginning to agree with InfiniteNow. I've given you leeway from the start, and have defended your side as you develop your argument. But you'll have to come with better proof than mere analogies and metaphors to explain something that clearly doesn't exist. Otherwise it's merely your interpretation, and speculation thereupon. Else, it's merely a Strange Claim, indeed.

 

I do agree with you in the view that there is much pressure on the individual to assume that he is monogamous, and that particular individual might feel very guilty after an extramarital copulation, but that shame and guilt and the entire experience of human "monogamy" is 100% learned, i.e. cultural.

 

If you insist on claiming that there is a particular gene for monogamy, then you should back it up with proof. Else, I'll agree with InfiniteNow for moving this thread to Strange Claims.

[Turtle]

If a young American boy grows up humping his Aunty's boots in the closet, then he will grow up to have an enormous unit, become a famous cartoonist, marry a woman, & then move to France to retire and live monogamously. It is the genetic predisposition to closet use that is at the root of monogomy in humans.

 

reference

[lawcat]

Monogamy is about loyalty. Everyone wants it, but none want to give it. Monogamy is unnatural and imposed by law, which is also unnatural; but, the option is polygamy, and polygamy is chaos.

[suppenkasper]

once I watched on tv not every human beign have the monogamy thing on its head ..

[dduckwessel]

I think that Alpha males are naturally polygamous but many societies frown on polygamy and so those instincts are repressed. Not all males are Alpha males though and those seem to prefer monogamous relationships.

 

If societal views were less restrictive in many countries I think that females could go either way depending on the male.

[charles brough]

This is not established science. Rather it is an observation that I am presenting as a topic of open discussion.

 

The genetic argument of sexual promiscuity being connected to increasing genetic diversity makes sense at the genetic level. It has led to the conclusion humans are promiscuous animals. But there are strong human counter emotions that suggest there is also a monogamous instinct within humans. This appears to be connected to the emotions and effects centered on jealousy, which can lead to crimes of passion.

 

If both natural impulses were given free reign, as an experiment, the monogamous related instincts (as defined) would go to the most extreme of expression. Crimes of passion are illegal because of this. In the hierarchy of instinct, the most extreme usually has the highest instinctive priority. I tend to think both impulses are part of humans, with the monogamy impulses stronger. The full effect is countered by manmade law because of the primal irrationality.

 

Using our hopelessly inadequate understanding of the human epigentic heritage is really not a fruitful way of trying to discern our nature. We do much much better to relate our nature to that of other social animals and especially primates and very specially chimps. We have about the same gender dimorphism dissimilarity. In other words, the men are a little large then the women, as male chimps are to female ones. Much larger is characteristic of polygynous species. Much smaller or equal size is found in the monogamous species.

 

In pre-history, it was for long not known that the male played any role in reproduction(!), so all society was matralineal, but the male still dominated. We did pass through an age in which the female sex dominated public opinion in the age of agricultural communes, but it was not until we evolved the patriarchal-monogamous system that we really managed to build civilization. That system does have a structural weakness and has a lot to do with the multiple rise and fall cycles within the overall growth and final collapse of the society and its civilization. We tend to call those inner cycles "dynasties." Women become assertive in the society whenever the governing ideology becomes divided and hence weakens. This tends to break down the patriarchal family system so that social problems arise and the situation grows worse.

 

In "The Last Civilization" I have all that down in detail and it is quite revealing.

[CraigD]

In "The Last Civilization" I have all that down in detail and it is quite revealing.

 

[from signature] http://civilization-overview.com

Wow! What's revealing to me is that your thinking - and, more importantly, writing - on the subject of history and civilization dwarfs my own, and that I need to read your latest book, The Last Civilization.

 

I'm curious, Charles - have your read Olaf Stapledon, in particular Last and First Men (1930)? Though his best and best known works are wildly fictional, his main area of interest - human history on very long time scales - seems to me similar to yours. Or Kim Stanley Robinson, especially his Mars trilogy? Though Robinson's views on theism seem very different than yours, he shares you enthusiasm for extraterrestrial human expansion.

[dduckwessel]

...since the female doesn't have to wear makeup for her husband and the husband doesn't have to be use pretend charm or sing a song that works again and again.

 

most definitely a precursor for marriage failure - one must never take their mate for granted

[HydrogenBond]

Unlike sexual promiscuity in animals, promiscuity in humans spreads STD's. If we look at evolution and selective advantage, behavior that increases risk of sickness and death does not offer as much advantage as behavior with less risk. Selective advantage and evolution would follow the path of lower risk. That means monogamy is more evolved for humans. This may not be the case with animals since STD risk is the same both ways.

 

In other words, if we took away all the artifical prosthesis to compensate for the health pitfals of promiscuity, so we are back to natural selection (no artifical additives)the direction of evolution would be more obvious. Human have free will and can maintain natural selective disadvantage and prosper, if we use a wide range of artificial prosthesis to compensate for the higher risk of selective disadvantage.

 

We can pretend in other ways. The large buck will have an advantage over the smaller buck who will have disadvantage. We can put the little buck in an armored car to create the illusion the small is stronger. But if we get back to natural it is harder to pretend using empirical studies based on the armored car versus the big buck.

[Turtle]

Unlike sexual promiscuity in animals, promiscuity in humans spreads STD's.

...

We can pretend in other ways. ...

 

right back at it eh!? :doh: where's your citations for your claims? no; we're not pretending that you're anything special deserving an exemption. enough -yet again- of your utter & complete nonsense.

 

How Often Do Animals Get STDs?

...

STDs in animals and humans have a historical relationship. "Two or three of the major STDs have come from animals," says Alonso Aguirre, a veterinarian and vice president for conservation medicine at Wildlife Trust. "We know, for example, that gonorrhea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually." The most recent, as well as the deadliest, STD to migrate to humans is HIV, which hunters acquired from the blood of chimpanzees, says Aguirre. The disease became transmissible from one person to another through semen and other bodily fluids after it had spread to the human population.

 

...

[HydrogenBond]

Regardless of the who or what has VD, natural selection and evoution will favor lower risk behavior over higher risk behavior, with monogamy having a lower risk of physical ailments compared to permiscuous behavior. With permiscuous behavior we need many artifical additives to compensate. The result is artifical selection. I would assume the ancients practiced both ways and through observations of attrition rates realized what was natural selection.

 

I will go slow so turtle can keep up and not freak out.

 

All I am doing is applying natural selection and contrasting it to wishful selection, that only works if we introduce synthetic things to compensate for lack of natural selection.

[Turtle]

Regardless of the who or what has VD, natural selection and evoution will favor lower risk behavior over higher risk behavior, with monogamy having a lower risk of physical ailments compared to permiscuous behavior. With permiscuous behavior we need many artifical additives to compensate. The result is artifical selection. I would assume the ancients practiced both ways and through observations of attrition rates realized what was natural selection.

 

I will go slow so turtle can keep up and not freak out.

 

All I am doing is applying natural selection and contrasting it to wishful selection, that only works if we introduce synthetic things to compensate for lack of natural selection.

 

your comments are baseless unsupported drivel, mindless ramblings, divisive quackery, and completely unwelcome. moreover, your refusal to support your claims is still against our rules. go away.

[HydrogenBond]

It hard to go any slower for turtle but I will try. First I believe in live and let live. I am more interested in shining light on a logical inconsisitency.

 

Natural selection means all natural, and not natural with artificial additives to create an illusion of natural. Promiscuity needs aritificial support or else it would lead to wide spread disease. With these additives it works fairly well. But by the very nature of needing artificial additives it is not natural. The claims of promiscuity being natural to humans is a deception because it only works with artifical additives. I understand this is adogma of the atheist religion. To each its own. Logic may not be important to religion as faith, but it should be important to science.

 

Let me give a different example to show how the deception works. There are many animals on earth that fly therefore flying is natural. The parallel claim I will make is, flying is natural for humans. To make this deception work I will add artificial additives like jet packs, airplanes, jets, etc. Now I proved it is natural. What I am saying is take away all artificial additives and let us run an experinent to see how natural it is. Who does natural select?

 

Religion by picking monogamy picked the human sexaul behavior that does not require artificial additives. The atheists picked what they wanted and added artificial additives to create an illusion of antural which science can't see through, or works hard to perpetuate. This may be natural to apes since they don't need artificial additives. But once you add artificial the claim of natural is a deception.

 

I believe in live and let live. I did both monogamy and promiscuity. I am more concerned with the truth in science and not blindly defending science magic tricks. Use your common sense Turtle and control your emotions and you will be able to see through the magic trick.

[Sci]

When monogamy turn to monotony, then perhaps one heads to the plural of 'spouse', which may be called 'spice'.