Evolution's Role in Mate Selection

[scratch]

Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo

OK, back to basics. Evolution is measured in 1000s of years. At the least. Modern humans have been around for 30-50,000 years, so most of the evolving happened before then. The social security system which allows the externalities in your argument is rather recent.

 

That's fair. Your argument trumps mine on this point.

 

Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo

An abandoned child c. 5000 BC (or 50,000 BC) dies of hunger. Or grows up weak and small. Or is enslaved. Or becomes a human sacrifice. They're not a burden on society. The druids don't worry that they're not learning at school. Taxpayers don't worry that they're not taking their fair share of the burden of constructing Stonehenge. Dad's genes pay the price of dad's absence.

 

This statement is refuted by my above post about Shaq. The extent to which the argument is plausible is up for debate, but nothing in your paragraph here is compelling against it.

 

Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo

Correspondingly, in most of human history, fathers are not absent. The strategy of random fertilisation is relatively rare, although I agree that we are equipped to try this strategy under certain circumstances...

 

I agree that this is not the normal human empirical pattern, but that's because the female strategy is to hold on to the man. A question that I'm trying to figure out is how they can. The knee-jerk is to cite societal pressure, but it may be too new a phenomenon.

 

Perhaps this gets back to the desire of the man trying to secure optimum sex. Even today, the most desirable (in terms of appearance, and ability to secure resources) males are less likely to have monogomous relationships (consider how many male celebrities cheat). However, less desirable men have monogoumous relationships, in part, to maximize their supply of fun and frequent sex. For many men, given the competitive environment, monogamy does become the best reproductive strategy. Just not for the fittest men. I see no reason that this competition-driven outcome could not have applied 50,000 years ago.

[lindya]

Even today, the most desirable (in terms of appearance, and ability to secure resources) males are less likely to have monogomous relationships (consider how many male celebrities cheat).

 

Consider, too, how many female celebrities cheat. Power is an aphrodisiac, and many women make as much use of it in increasing their pool of sexual partners as men do. Angeline Jolie is a prime example of this.

 

Whilst hiding behind the guise of scientific objectivity, evolutionists do always seem to present theories that ultimately support their own interests - and justify their prejudices. What are your views on Darwin's theories regarding the alleged superiority of Europeans over other races?

[scratch]

Absolutely true, but I'd argue that the degree to which female celebs do this is much, much smaller than the degree to which males do this. I'd also say that more male celebs marry unknown (or lesser known) women than vice versa. It's just rare that the unkown women aren't model-quality in terms of looks.

 

Originally posted by lindya

Whilst hiding behind the guise of scientific objectivity, evolutionists do always seem to present theories that ultimately support their own interests - and justify their prejudices. What are your views on Darwin's theories regarding the alleged superiority of Europeans over other races?

 

Start a new thread about this and I will gladly post on it.

[lindya]

Originally posted by scratch

Start a new thread about this and I will gladly post on it.

 

I should hope that would be as redundant as starting a thread asking whether women should start wearing whalebone corsets again (please don't tell me you think they should!)

 

I agree that humans, like any other animals, adapt to their environment by developing certain physical characteristics. There's an evidential problem, however, in arguing that our behaviour and interactions with others are governed primarily by animal drives and instincts rather than being influenced by emotions or any need to "bond" with one particular human.

 

How do you separate a pure evolutionist theory from a socially engineered belief system? I don't think you can, and I believe that Darwin's sexually and racially prejudiced views demonstrated that.

[scratch]

Originally posted by lindya

I agree that humans, like any other animals, adapt to their environment by developing certain physical characteristics. There's an evidential problem, however, in arguing that our behaviour and interactions with others are governed primarily by animal drives and instincts rather than being influenced by emotions or any need to "bond" with one particular human.

 

That's the Hobbesian problem in a nutshell, but the connection between with whom males form bonds and with whom they attempt to procreate is tenuous at best from an evolutionary perspective.

 

Originally posted by lindya

How do you separate a pure evolutionist theory from a socially engineered belief system? I don't think you can, and I believe that Darwin's sexually and racially prejudiced views demonstrated that.

 

I agree. I think we're arguing degree on this thread for the most part. Social constructions are important to the extent we may act in certain ways to avoid normative sanctions, but how powerful are they when compared to evolutionary imperatives?

[moimeme]

This theory is not new. There's a major flaw; the evolutionary usefulness of emotional pain. There's no disagreement that humans have evolved differently from other animals and therefore to argue that in the matter of monogamy we must be exactly like other animals still is illogical.

 

In fact, humans have a highly evolved sense of grief. We have seen animals mourn other animals and some stories are quite poignant, but their capacity to grieve is not anything like the capacity of humans to grieve.

 

Were humans meant to be non-monogamous, there would be no biological reason for grief at the loss of a mate. We would grieve lost children but not lost mates. However, humans suffer profound grief at the loss of mates and at betrayal by mates. This is no accident, but rather the biological confirmation that monogamy is indeed the natural state for this particular animal.

[ReluctantRomeo]

Originally posted by moimeme

However, humans suffer profound grief at the loss of mates and at betrayal by mates. This is no accident, but rather the biological confirmation that monogamy is indeed the natural state for this particular animal.

 

Good point.

 

And note that guys can be pretty paranoid about cheating women. With good reason - we don't want to bring up another's children (sorry about the grammar, Scratch).

[ReluctantRomeo]

Originally posted by lindya

What are your views on Darwin's theories regarding the alleged superiority of Europeans over other races?

 

You don't really want me to start on this, do you?

[ReluctantRomeo]

Originally posted by scratch

Perhaps this gets back to the desire of the man trying to secure optimum sex. Even today, the most desirable (in terms of appearance, and ability to secure resources) males are less likely to have monogomous relationships (consider how many male celebrities cheat). However, less desirable men have monogoumous relationships, in part, to maximize their supply of fun and frequent sex. For many men, given the competitive environment, monogamy does become the best reproductive strategy. Just not for the fittest men. I see no reason that this competition-driven outcome could not have applied 50,000 years ago.

 

 

Interesting take! Historically, though, wouldn't the solution to this have been polygamy? So they're still committed and looking after the children.

[scratch]

Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo

Interesting take! Historically, though, wouldn't the solution to this have been polygamy? So they're still committed and looking after the children.

 

Polygamy is one solution, and is actually more of a freedom-oriented concept than monogamy. But I digress...

 

Men usually only benefit from looking after the children, relatively speaking, when they don't have the option not to. The Shaq strategy is still preferred, I feel, to the Mr. Mom strategy, as it's less costly and provides more total offspring. But, I definitely am not tied to this position, and suspect that if I read a few good books arguing in the other direction, I could be swayed.