mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
monogamy Options
moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:42:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
We've tried this for a while but it seems to have just about run its course. Seems natural selection is eliminating it; but what will it be replaced by in our ceaseless evolutionary journey? Surely a system that will produce fitter children better able to prolong the species. However, at the moment are we going backwards towards more obeise kids in the west and more starving ones in the third world? Love your thoughts.
TYSON
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:07:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/7/2009
Posts: 1,258
Neurons: 3,793
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ive heard the average life-span for a species is 8 million years. I hope it includes us because it aint looking good.
moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:38:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
Hey Ty I am not suggesting the human species is terminal - just monogamy. And this might be a good thing...cetainly for the species as a whole it will be (necessarily). My question is: What next?
TB
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:42:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
moorwood wrote:
We've tried this for a while but it seems to have just about run its course. Seems natural selection is eliminating it; but what will it be replaced by in our ceaseless evolutionary journey? Surely a system that will produce fitter children better able to prolong the species. However, at the moment are we going backwards towards more obeise kids in the west and more starving ones in the third world? Love your thoughts.



Interesting question

One of the many things I like about TFD is that someone will post a thought or question I had not previously considered and that will get me doing research on the subject. I have some vague notions about where we're headed but I'll have to get back to you on that. I do remember someone posted something about the skinny people eating the fat ones or was it the meat eaters were going to eat the vegetarians when we run out of food? Anxious
moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:52:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
That's food for thought TB. Or maybe when monogamy's gone it will be kinda back to the sixties, the fatties will be left on the sidelines and the skinnies will inherit and populate the world...
reiki333
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:56:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 154
Neurons: 74,481
Hey, dont forget celibacy! It seems to flow well with divorcees....I am for monogamy myself...not so big on celibacy.
Nobigdeal
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:33:53 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/8/2009
Posts: 4
Neurons: 12
Location: Tunisia
Hi, I don't really get it; what has monogamy (The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time) got to do with being fat or skinny or with the surviaval of our species?d'oh!
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:54:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
I beg the same question as Nobigdeal; unless, your agenda is to promote Polygamy or Polyandry for this matter.
rluna
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:01:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 196
Neurons: 570
Location: Austin, TX - United States
I think the survival of our species will depend on our willingness to put away our differences in terms of overall beliefs, and respect one another. Technology will be easier to achieve if we work as a single entity under the banner of betterment for mankind. I think we will be on the correct path once we can stop killing each other and start figuring out how to make life beautiful for all.Anxious
Monogomy is a prefence of lifestyle and if it works for you then it works for you. Other chosen lifestyles have just as much merit and don't deserve to be looked down upon with prejudice, or accusation that it will be the end of our human race.
wercozy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:30:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/1/2009
Posts: 1,470
Neurons: 3,480
Location: United States
We've visited this topic before...

Research is showing that promiscuity is related to vasopressin deficiency. There won't be a pill for monogamy any time soon as there are 40 + neurochemicals responsible for billions of combination possibilities that affect our choices and responses to the world around us.
Articulate Dreamer
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:29:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/16/2009
Posts: 12,726
Neurons: 96,645
Location: Bangalore, Karnataka, India
wercozy wrote:
We've visited this topic before...

Research is showing that promiscuity is related to vasopressin deficiency. There won't be a pill for monogamy any time soon as there are 40 + neurochemicals responsible for billions of combination possibilities that affect our choices and responses to the world around us.

Wercozy, you missed/dodged my question the last time, but do you really think that genetic/ biological explanations could tell us why jocks, showbiz stars the rich and famous are more given to promiscuity?
capo403
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:01:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/26/2009
Posts: 564
Neurons: 1,815
Location: United States
monogamy...

Not to be confused with monotony. Shame on you
gatodepatasblancas
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:31:30 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 9/17/2009
Posts: 22
Neurons: 66
Location: Mexico
Monogamy and Promiscuity, say the anthopologists, are survival tools. Chimpanzee is our more close genetic cousin, the difference between chimpanzee and human DNA is less than 2%, why humans are on their way to the stars and chimpanzees are on their way to the jungle? Reviewing their behavior, the chimpanzees are certainly prone to be sexualy 'open', while humans are prone (not totaly but close) to monogamy. Well, this will be a shock for some of you that justify infidelity with evolutionary jargon: the human race became inteligent because monogamy.

The experts say that child care stress over the energy applied to survival, and children are vital for the species continuation. The first evolutionated humans stressed for survival and children care found a very useful stretegy: team work. The male and female became a couple. The male protects the female and the children they procreated. The female can use their time and energy to raise the kids. Both tasks need strategy, need a plan, need coordination, both between the couple and their group; that path leads to inteligence.

Another shock, this time to veggies: the only way the human brain in evolution could become that big, allowing better inteligent process, is eating protein... Animal protein. When the first humans changed their eating ways becoming omnivores, including meat in their diet, their brains could evolve, increasing its size, becoming inteligents.

But, who said that humans are totaly evolved? We are changing still. Humans are inteligen but not THAT interligent. There are still many ape traits in human behavior, such as promiscuity, but monogamy was the way to become inteligent humans. Think like this: we are the 'missing link' between the ape and the more inteligent human, that being that will respect the diferences, and will work with the similarities. Only time will tell...
wercozy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:58:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/1/2009
Posts: 1,470
Neurons: 3,480
Location: United States
Not all jocks, stars, and rich are promiscuous. Be careful you might offend someone on this forum who might be a jock, a celebrity star, or a rich person. These people are in the public eye, no one cares about the commoners and their bedroom antics.
sandraleesmith46
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:15:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 695
Neurons: 2,132
Location: Arizona's high deserts
gatodepatasblancas wrote:
Monogamy and Promiscuity, say the anthopologists, are survival tools. Chimpanzee is our more close genetic cousin, the difference between chimpanzee and human DNA is less than 2%, why humans are on their way to the stars and chimpanzees are on their way to the jungle? Reviewing their behavior, the chimpanzees are certainly prone to be sexualy 'open', while humans are prone (not totaly but close) to monogamy. Well, this will be a shock for some of you that justify infidelity with evolutionary jargon: the human race became inteligent because monogamy.

The experts say that child care stress over the energy applied to survival, and children are vital for the species continuation. The first evolutionated humans stressed for survival and children care found a very useful stretegy: team work. The male and female became a couple. The male protects the female and the children they procreated. The female can use their time and energy to raise the kids. Both tasks need strategy, need a plan, need coordination, both between the couple and their group; that path leads to inteligence.

Another shock, this time to veggies: the only way the human brain in evolution could become that big, allowing better inteligent process, is eating protein... Animal protein. When the first humans changed their eating ways becoming omnivores, including meat in their diet, their brains could evolve, increasing its size, becoming inteligents.

But, who said that humans are totaly evolved? We are changing still. Humans are inteligen but not THAT interligent. There are still many ape traits in human behavior, such as promiscuity, but monogamy was the way to become inteligent humans. Think like this: we are the 'missing link' between the ape and the more inteligent human, that being that will respect the diferences, and will work with the similarities. Only time will tell...


I have to back this position. Both the increased brain function and the need for 2 parents to raise the offspring well. The fact is that the lack of monogamy in our society, particularly since the 60's, is showing all-too-clearly. Yes, many single parents do a fine job of raising and providing for their children's physical needs, but it takes time to provide for emotional needs, and that's just not happening nearly enough, even in 2 parent homes now, because Mom often has to work outside the home full time too. That said, I'm not advocating we back up to the Victorian era, but there definitely need to be some changes providing greater stability and emotional support and care for the children in homes today. A single parent has job, home to keep up, and so many of the jobs today aren't just 8 hours/5 days any longer, so far less time to spend with the kids. And unless the parent also takes care of him- or herself, he/she can't take care of the kids, but there just aren't enough hours to do all that. We all lose, the individuals and the society as a whole, the way things are going now.
Geeman
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:44:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
It's hard to see how monogamy might be weeded out by something like evolutionary forces. Monogamy is related to certain biological drives, but it is as much culture as anything else. It's such a broad and abstract social issue that I don't think it relates particularly well to something as particular as the generalized biological process of evolution. Mixing the two is, in fact, probably best equated to any other mistaken attempt to blend to the two into a social evolution, and that's just a fundamentally fallacious reading of both processes.

It's kind of like asking when chemistry will replace cooking. Cooking is chemical, and chemstry occurs when cooking. There are overlapping concepts between the two. But they are basically different categories. One person might want to equate them, but it really betrays a bad understanding of one if one wants to portray it as part of the other....
TB
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:47:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Articulate Dreamer wrote:



off topic topic but...

I got the Lord Byron avatar but your new one has me stumped.Think

Wordsworth?
bugdoctor
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:48:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2009
Posts: 1,789
Neurons: 5,456
Location: United States - Georgia
wercozy wrote:
We've visited this topic before...

Research is showing that promiscuity is related to vasopressin deficiency. There won't be a pill for monogamy any time soon as there are 40 + neurochemicals responsible for billions of combination possibilities that affect our choices and responses to the world around us.


This is interesting and might lead to some equally interesting courtroom antics. Imagine a wealthy man in a divorce proceeding, after he's been caught cheating. "But your honor, it wasn't my fault. You see, I have a BIG vasopressin deficiency and I jus couldn't help myself. I'm THE VICTIM!"

Angel
moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:50:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
Thanks gato. That's the thing. Maybe monogamy has been a survival tool (one mom and one dad making and caring for fit kids) but when NS's tools are no longer working too well he changes them. If he thinks fat kids aren't too good at keeping the species going (ie not fat aint fit) and gets the idea that monogamy is responsible for producing so many of them (no mom at home while they sit and eat and sit and eat) he might try something else. But what will he replace it with to ensure that we produce a few new generations of fitter kids? Maybe he'll chuck marriage away altogether. (PS I know NS isn't a he and doesn't really think - it's an allegory.)
TB
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:52:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
bugdoctor wrote:
wercozy wrote:
We've visited this topic before...

Research is showing that promiscuity is related to vasopressin deficiency. There won't be a pill for monogamy any time soon as there are 40 + neurochemicals responsible for billions of combination possibilities that affect our choices and responses to the world around us.


This is interesting and might lead to some equally interesting courtroom antics. Imagine a wealthy man in a divorce proceeding, after he's been caught cheating. "But your honor, it wasn't my fault. You see, I have a BIG vasopressin deficiency and I jus couldn't help myself. I'm THE VICTIM!"

Angel




I think we just heard Tiger Woods' divorce court statement. Dancing
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:07:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand

BEWARE OF STRANGE WOMEN
1Kings 11:1-10
(1) But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
(2) Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
(3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
(4) For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
(5) For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
(6) And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
(7) Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
(8) And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
(9) And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
(10) And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:08:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
I cannot remember where I heard this, but it's an interesting, if completely unproven, concept.

We are monogamous, primarily for the extended child rearing reason, but our monogamy evolved when we had a much shorter lifespan. Our longer lifespan allows for too much change in individuals for most relationships to survive. One assumes that thus, we shall enter a period of serial monogamy or perhaps look at the (currently fictional) institution of line-marriage Wikipedia Group Marriage - see the second paragraph.

Biologically, there are new studies showing most species of animals are unfaithful, including many bird species previously thought to mate for life. (Thank you, current DNA technology.)
TB
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:22:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Dreamy wrote:

BEWARE OF STRANGE WOMEN
1Kings 11:1-10
(1) But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

(3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.




I thought Solomon was known for being wise; I'd say he should have been more famous for being...busy.

moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:23:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
I like the way you think ruthie. But, dreamy, don't bring religion into an otherwise rational (even if a trifle ironic) discussion, or we'll get nowhere even faster.
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:23:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
HERE IS WISDOM INDEED:

Proverbs 6:20-35
(20) My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
(21) Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
(22) When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
(23) For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
(24) To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
(25) Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.
(26) For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
(27) Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
(28) Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
(29) So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
(30) Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
(31) But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
(32) But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
(33) A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

(34) For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
(35) He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

Galatians 5:19-23
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:27:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
Blimey!
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:31:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
moorwood wrote:
I like the way you think ruthie. But, dreamy, don't bring religion into an otherwise rational (even if a trifle ironic) discussion, or we'll get nowhere even faster.

Whose idea was sex if not our Creator's?

Genenis 1:28
(28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Hebrews 13:4
(4) Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:35:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
moorwood wrote:
Blimey!


Short for "blind me".

I'd rather people's eyes were opened to the truth.

moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:42:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
Mate, nothing personal but do you genuinely have a bad dose of indoctrination or are you being sardonic?

Maybe a useful new topic would be "Is there a cure for religious indoctrination". Alan de Botton might be able to make suggestions, or Christopher Hitchens - though his might be rather too drastic.
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:04:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
moorwood wrote:
Mate, nothing personal but do you genuinely have a bad dose of indoctrination or are you being sardonic?

Maybe a useful new topic would be "Is there a cure for religious indoctrination". Alan de Botton might be able to make suggestions, or Christopher Hitchens - though his might be rather too drastic.


Hi Moorwood,
I like to engage in meaningful discussion and humourous reparte as long as it doesn't become banal or crude.

A question for you:What makes you think that I have been indoctrinated in some way whilst you yourself have not?
saintvivant1
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:08:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/24/2009
Posts: 38
Neurons: 117
Location: United States
I would question if our species has ever practised true mongamy. According to National Geographic Dec. 2009 , the Hadza tribe of northern Tanzania is true hunter-gatherer society and represent one of the last remnants of early Homo Sapiens living as our ancestors did before we had what we now call "civilization". They have no livestock, grow no food, have no rules. They band together in groups of about 30 because this is about how many people they can feed with a typical animal that they hunt and kill. They do not mate for life and have no rituals or ceremonies. Given the number of people we all know from everyday life that have broken their marriage vows, have alternative lifesytles, or have gotten divorced, never mind, Hollywood, Tiger Woods or Soloman, it is hard to believe that monogamy is a primal urge. More likely we still react just as the Hadza to our biological impulses, except that tha Hadza are not hypocrtites.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:11:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 591,579
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
TB wrote:
Articulate Dreamer wrote:



off topic topic but...

I got the Lord Byron avatar but your new one has me stumped.Think

Wordsworth?


William Blake, I presume?
TB
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:29:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
TB wrote:
Articulate Dreamer wrote:



off topic topic but...

I got the Lord Byron avatar but your new one has me stumped.Think

Wordsworth?


William Blake, I presume?



Applause
moorwood
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:26:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 138
Neurons: 465
Location: Australia
My apologies dreamy if I wrongly assumed from your obsessive bible quoting that you had been indoctrinated. As I understand it the other possible cause is hallucination. Of course neither are anything to be ashamed of.
Dreamy
Posted: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:30:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
moorwood wrote:
My apologies dreamy if I wrongly assumed from your obsessive bible quoting that you had been indoctrinated. As I understand it the other possible cause is hallucination. Of course neither are anything to be ashamed of.

Of course one should never apply the word indoctrination to anyone other than a born again, blood-washed, tongues-talking, water-baptised, faith-walking, repentance-praying, community-serving, Gospel-preaching, Bible believing, Spirit-filled, evergreen Christian.

No nazi should be considered indoctrinated,
No communist should ever be labelled indoctrinated,
No atheist should ever be called indoctrinated,
No occultist should ever be named as one who is indoctrinated,
No, philosopher should ever suffer accusations of their being indoctrinated,
and most important of all,
No evolutionist should ever have the term indoctrinated applied to them.

Surely their ideas and beliefs are not the result of persuasive arguments and appealing theories taught by scholars or laymen alike and passed on through social networks and media. How dare any one suggest such a vile thing?

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.