From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 11:26:39 MST
Something that you seemed to miss here that I picked up from the book "Demonic
Males - Apes and the Origins of Human Violance" by Richard Wrangham and Dale
Peterson:
All of the apes except humans have a sense of smell capable of telling the males
when the females are fertile. This means that the ape can pay little or no
attention to the female except when necessary - when sex is likely to result in
a pregnancy. Humans on the other hand cannot tell by smell alone when the proper
time to mate is. Women have learned over the millenea to hide their cycle from
the males. This means that in order to create a baby, to reproduce, the male
must entice the female to ramain with him throughout a the reproductive years if
they wish to reproduce.
So - it is in part a woman's deception that puts the males in a position of
choosing to remain with them - or risk their reproductive future.
Certainly there are other arguments - but I thought this one might help
Bill
Blunderov wrote:
> "The maternal instinct for progeny survival is the easiest to forward on the
> face of the issue.
> It is not what I am asking for.
> This response is the most often forwarded. In the n=76 times that I have
> gotten a response to this question, I have received 43 (now) replies that
> deal with moma/baby protect/love.
>
> Let me restate "Extreme Emotional Attachment". Think Adult!
>
> Kirkasaurus Wrecks"
>
> My last response was feeble. I hope this one is better.
>
> Here is what I have found
>
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html
>
> This site is entitled "Diversity of Primate mating systems"
>
> Here is some of the stuff I have gleaned from it.
>
> The monogamous mating strategy only occurs in species where it is not
> possible, or cost effective, for a male to control more than one female.
>
> In the bird species this condition is present because of the parent
> intensive nature of their reproductive activities.
>
> It occurs in primates for different reasons. One of the conditions which
> makes it difficult for male primates to control more than one female is if
> the number of estruses is low. Human females it should be noted have +- 12
> estruses per year.
> It is also difficult for males to control more than one female when they are
> widely dispersed.
> (Here is a direct quote from the site)
> "In gibbons however, females are very evenly distributed in the environment
> and this seems to be because of mutual aggression between females. So a male
> might like to have a harem but the females won't have any of it. This has
> been difficult to prove experimentally, but they have done playback
> experiments. When you play female sounds then the female of a pair will
> charge over to the speaker to attack but the male will just sit there and be
> a dork. So the females reduce males' options until they have no choice but
> to be monogamous......
>
> Monogamy
> Ok, so if polygyny is so great then why do some end up being monogamous?
> It's certainly not very common:
> Birds- 90% monogamous.
> Mammals- under 5% monogamous
> Primates- 37/200=~18% monogamous.
> (Traditional human societies are about 20% monogamous.)
> Characteristics of monogamous primates
> 1. Limited mating opportunities
> 2. Male investment in offspring is high
> 3. Male confidence in paternity is high (we're just talking probability
> here, not mental awareness)
> 4. Little sexual dimorphism
> 5. Territoriality & sex-specific aggression"
>
> One of the effects of monogamy is to reduce competition amongst males. This
> would make it possible for reasonably large bands of people to live together
> without too much of a violence "overhead".
>
> I recalled L'Ermit's post of the other day....
>
> "[Hermit] Until we became civilized, we lived in a wide variety of exactly
> such "family packs" (evidence of burial sites and genetics) even though we
> don't know exactly how they were arranged....
>
> ....a reasonably large population (500 plus) is required to
> allow line shifts when a negative hereditable mutation occurs (1 per 2,500
> years in a healthy population. 1 per 3 years where the gene line starts out
> as a sea of recessives - as is the current case with humans and some
> endangered species)."
>
> <Here Blunderov ventures out on the thin ice of his own conclusions>
>
> "Extreme emotional attachment" tends to promote monogamous behaviour.
> Monogamous behaviour has the effect of providing a more diverse gene pool.
> This means that there is an enhanced prospect of a favourable inheritable
> mutation taking place in a quicker time. Monogamous behaviour at the same
> time makes it possible for humans to live in large enough concentrations for
> a favourable mutation to have statiscally better chance of "taking root" my
> quotes) and becoming a hereditable line. It is also a more disaster
> resistant entity than a smaller group.
>
> <Blunderov, heedless of the danger, now ventures some outright speculation>
>
> It seems reasonable to suppose that a species which lives in extended
> groups would favour the selection of communication skills.
>
> It seems reasonable to suppose that communication skills would be enhanced
> by cognitive skills.
>
> It seems reasonable to suppose that cognitive skills would be enhanced by
> selection for awareness/consciousness.
>
> Therefore:
>
> Monogamy is a jolly good thing.
>
> Love is a jolly good thing.
>
> We may owe everything we have to the fact that women menstruate so
> frequently.
>
> Yours
>
> Blunderov.
>
> PS I don't understand the genetics. Why is (the human gene pool) "a sea of
> recessives - as is the current case with humans and some endangered
> species)."? Is this bad?
>
> Thx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT