STD's and Natural Human Behavior

[HydrogenBond]

Logic is one of the most important tools of science. I am going to use logic to deduce an aspect of natural human behavior that is opposite to what science and even Darwinism preaches. Logic suggests that promiscuity could not have been the natural state of humans, due to STD's. The amount of STD's increases in proportion to the percent of promiscuity. With the natural affect, without synthetic, being genes taken out of the gene pool.

 

Back in the old days, they didn't have the same medicines and condoms as today. The result of STD's would have been a terminal condition. We could take a segment of the modern population and cut off the medicines and see what would happen. If early pre-humans were promiscuous, sterility and death, would have been a problem. Those breeding all the time, or trying to breed, would have selective disadvantage due to STD's. It appears Darwin liked the ladies and the science of the day was catering to this wishful expectations. The affect of this wishful thinking may not have shown up if most people had been monogamous. It was rushed through the system.

 

Another way to look at it; STD's are a natural cause and effect designed to place a limit on promiscuity. Default it is designed to remove such people from the gene pool. Science is able to counter this, but the logic suggest this is actually unnatural behavior. It should not require synthetic compensation if it was natural. But humans have free will and are able to will science to pretend this is natural.

 

We can do an experiment. We remove all medications and condoms to simulate the natural human environment. Let nature takes it course in a green way, without synthetics, and see who is left for breeding. Then we will investigate the type of behavior that fits in with healthy nature which will repopulate the earth. Most of Darwin's star pupils may not be around. Darwin was wish for-filling if he thought this applied to humans. Don't get me wrong, playing around can be fun, even if it is unnatural human. But make sure you use some type of synthetic precaution. In this particular case religion did better natural science than science. The problem may be life sciences are empirical. Today it is good and tomorrow it is bad. Religion may have used logic to draw the correct conclusion.

[freeztar]

Religion may have used logic to draw the correct conclusion.

 

How?

[Moontanman]

Promiscuous doesn't necessarily mean STDs, benobo chimps are extremely promiscuous they don't suffer disproportionately from STDs.

[HydrogenBond]

The discussion is about humans and natural human behavior. Animal analogies is empirical fantasy creation. We could run an experiment and let natural selection decide. That would be cruel and the result would not come out the way we wish it will. Without synthetic (not green), it would narrow genes. Selective advantage would go to those who take precautions to avoid STP's without any synthetic necessity. The early humans would have to do this without knowledge but just good instinct. The herd may have stayed small until natural selection resulted in the most healthy behavior, then population begins to explode.

[Tiabin]

Just want to point out a few things that may be relevant to this discussion...

Recently scientists correlated the amount of disease in an area with diversity of religion. (Can't post links yet, sorry, google "religion diversity disease")

 

 

I thought this relevant with the whole STD and RELIGION connection. (Religion functions to lower promiscuity outside of your culture also.)

[modest]

Behavioural defences against sexually transmitted diseases in primates

 

monogamy was not correlated with a slow life history, which differs from predictions that monogamy is a response to increased STD risk in long-lived animals. Tests involving monogamy remained unsupported after controlling for potentially confounding variables, and all tests yielded similar results in phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic tests.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

When discussing supposedly inherent human traits like monogamy, we can't simply brush primatology studies under the table.

 

As was mentioned before, bonobos are notorious polygamists; sex and the ready availability thereof is the bonobos' prime trademark. Yet, as was also mentioned, they don't seem to suffer from STD's to any notably larger extent than other, less sexual, primates. An environment where a single female has literally hundreds of copulations per day with lots of individual males, would be a prime breeding ground for just that.

 

Anthropologists work closely with Primatologists, we can't just sweep their findings under the rug if their studies don't support the hypothesis currently under discussion.

 

Also, genetic studies done with supposedly monogamous birds have shown that monogamy (at least under these birds) is largely a myth. I will go and find some links to that, I've read it a couple of weeks ago in a book - will find it for you. Not that ornithology might necesseraly be appliccable to anthropology, but it still gives some food for thought.

 

Also, as a last thought regarding this matter, there is, of course, a reason why they refer to prostitution as "the oldest profession".

 

Sex has been used in trade amongst humans long before the invention of money.

 

Which leads me to assume that monogamy under humans is largely a myth, too.