Have you ever been in class or lecture, at a nature reserve, reading a book, or even simply been talking to someone who knows a bit about animals and been told that whatever animal mates for life? If you look around at the others around you (and I bet you do it too) they will get that goofy knowing look on their face or say something about it being cute or even romantic. We feel more of a connection to the animal they go up a knotch in our mind. We see mating for life as a sign of higher development.
Whether you believe in Creation, Evolution, that the aliens plated us, or even in that flying pasta monster I think most people will agree that humans are probably the highest of creatures. Some feel we are created in the image of God, the highest evolved, descended from the aliens or whatever. But most everyone feels that humans are the most intelligent individuals with quite the sense of socitey and community.
Well I would argue that our society is begining to de-evolve (This argument has nothing to do with the actual ideas of evolution but more so the ideas of cultural evolution, it also has nothing to do with Devo's Devolution thats a whole topic in it's self). I say we are de-evolving for if you look at our society it is becoming more and more acceptiable and encourage to throw out this sign of higer development, mating for life. This inheritin value in my oponion.
If you look at our cultural images on telvision shows, in books, in movies, even just how we speak of one another. Men are encouraged to sleep with every women they can and women are laughed and told they are not excersing their right if they are still virgins into their 20s. It reminds me of this rat I saw on Animal Planet once that has a very short reproductive cycle and has sex with everything it can within that period including things that it has no chance of reproducing with. It is just to horny to tell the diffrence. I am not taking that arcaic view that sex is simply for reperduction or that homosexuality is bad becuase it has no form of reproduction. Sex is meant to be enjoyed. But we are in many ways becoming those rats and throwing away the meaning and purpose of sex.
Now I know at this point manner are thinking that it is their body to do whatever they like with it. And this is true but I feel we are highly developed species that, unlike the rat, is not blinded by our sex drive. We can make choices to have and to not have sex which both for that matter full embrace our sexuality and body.
And now the comment is well I choose to have sex with many people. Okay thats your individual choice but lets look at what many making this choice has lead to. Almost an entire generation dying out in Africa. Many in Africa have disregarded this idea of mating for life and are contracting and dying from AIDS. Now I'm am not saying that it's all their fault because they really where not educated in the facts and it is a tragedy. I also do agree that there are other ways to get AIDS and HIV and ways to protect against it. But face it no protection is for sure and the most common ways of contracting HIV or AIDS is through sex.
Okay I know I know it was traditonal for men to have many wives in parts of Africa. While that is true. Things have changed over the years, though tribal areas often still have harems people have moved away from this idea. And the more social developed places have become the less common that practice has become. I believe that our society is the main thing evolving (progressing and changing) and that in this evolution we where moving away from that.
Well for some unknown reason to me we have decided to de-evolve and turn our back on this idea of one mate. Now I again am not saying that we should stay in this strict victorian marriage ideas. But having sex with so many diffrent partners is demeaning as a species. I really think it needs to change. And how in my opinon is fairly easy. We just stop celebrating men having sex with everyone they can and making women feel like they are not fighting for womens rights if they don't have sex. It is just as much of a statement for either party to just say 'no'. As a women I am celebrating my rights just as much by saying 'no'. It is a respect formost to ones self, secondly to their gender, and thirdly to their society,
You're an amazing writer, and I agree with you very much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Raven
STAND for SOMETHING.
Well thank you!
I enjoy reading your writing as well
An interesting post, but I'm going to throw something out there just because I'm curious what you think:
Isn't looking at it from the perspective that our society as correct in morals being a bit egocentric? As a species, the smartest evolutionary move would to be to have multiple mates, would it not (the population would, theoretically, be growning at a much faster rate than in monogamous partnerships)? Human populations have exploded due to medicines, sanitary issues, and overall better living conditions, all of which has nothing to do with whether the species is mono- or polygamous. You stated that tribes (ie populations that have not been influenced by the JudoChristianIslamic traditions) have been seen as having multiple wives. So could monogamy actually be a self-imposed human condition? The question is entire in-your-opinion, so I wont argue back. Just trying to pry at your brain : )
Well first off thank you for being so respectful I saw the begining of your comment before going to class and the whole time what thinking I was gonna have to go on the when I got back. So it's nice not to have to.
Well first off I had not thought of the idea of having many mates in the context of increasing reproduction rates. And though this is true I feel that we are emotional beings and that being magnanomis leads to better relationships and happier individuals.
Yes in a way my post is ego-centric because I am opporating from one world view. It was the one I was brought up in and has become so ingrained that it would be utterly imposible to disregard it all together. It will alwasy be there as will your own. I will agree that monogmois relationships are human created. But as our society is in a constant state of evolution. We create new ideas and cultural norms that in some cases are better. And if you look at the pattern we seem to have steped backwards in relationships.
Finally let me point out that though monogomy is related to Judo-christian socitey that early Jewish traditon was for men to hold hereams. It is said that king solomon had hundreds upon thousands or wives and concubines. And on that same note there are socities that un touched by judo-christian values have monogomous relationships.
Feel free to answer it could turn into quite the intresting debate.
A great post.
Glutenously yours,
Pasta Rasta
Whether you believe in Creation, Evolution, that the aliens plated us, or even in that flying pasta monster I think most people will agree that humans are probably the highest of creatures. Some feel we are created in the image of God, the highest evolved, descended from the aliens or whatever. But most everyone feels that humans are the most intelligent individuals with quite the sense of socitey and community.
Actually, I wouldn't agree. All life forms evolved from a common ancestor. Thus, everything that is presently living has had the same amount of time for mutations in their ancestors to be selected for or against. Thus, we are all equally evolved.
Furthermore, there is evidence for this. For example, whose DNA would you expect to be more similar to that of a Great White Shark ... a rainbow trout or a human? I think most people would say a rainbow trout since both the trout and the shark are fish. However, trout are belong to taxonomic group of the bony fish, Osteoicthys, while shark are cartilagenous fish, Chondricthys. The common ancestor of the two branched off very early in the course of evolution ... about 500 million years ago. The evolutionary branch that led to humans split off the from the branch that led to present-day bony fish about 400 millions years ago. Thus, evolutionarily humans are more closely related to bony fish than we are to sharks ... AND conversely evolutionarily bony fish are more closely related to us than they are to sharks as well. Another way to look at this is to say that humans and bony fish share a more recent common ancestor than they do with sharks.
What we see when we compare the genomic sequences we see that when we use sharks as the standard, humans and trout share about an equal number of differences in common genes. When we use either trout or humans as the standard we see that there are significantly more differences in the shark genome that of the other.
So what that means is that natural selection has fixed about an equal number of mutations in trout and humans since their divergence. Thus, we should not think of ourselves as more highly evolved.
Well I would argue that our society is begining to de-evolve (This argument has nothing to do with the actual ideas of evolution but more so the ideas of cultural evolution, it also has nothing to do with Devo's Devolution thats a whole topic in it's self). I say we are de-evolving for if you look at our society it is becoming more and more acceptiable and encourage to throw out this sign of higer development, mating for life. This inheritin value in my oponion.
This paragraph is not clear. So instead I will argue that there is no such thing as de-evolution. The idea rests on an assumption that there exists traits that are superior to others. This is unfounded. No trait is going to be superior to another trait IN ALL ENVIRONMENTS. So while one may argue that we are smarter than trout therefore we are superior to trout, the underlying assumption is that being smarter is a superior trait. But trout do not live in the same environment that we do. For them to be as smart as we are would require so much energy be devoted to brain development that no energy could be devoted for anything else. Such a trout would no make it through development to become a reproductive adult. Thus, for the environment a trout finds itself in ... intelligence on the order of humanity's is not a superior trait at all.
Now, lets try and transfer this discussion to cultural evolution. ... In order for evolution to happen there must be (1) some type of replicator, (2) variation between competing replicators that can be passed on to its offspring, and (3) an environment in which the variation contributes to the reproductive success of the replicator.
In biological evolution the replicator is our genome. The variation is the different alleles in our particular gene pool. The environment consists of everything that affects us from outside of our bodies. With respect to culture, the replicators are ideas (often called MEMES), the variation is the different ideas that we individuals hold at any particular moment. The environment is the society that houses those ideas.
Again just like biological evolution, I would argue that there is no cultural meme that will be selected for in ALL POSSIBLE SOCIETIES. So I don't think you can talk meaningfully of cultural de-evolution either.
We grow up in a particular society and become comfortable with it. That is what we see as the norm. If it changes we are likely to view that as bad. THAT, I suspect, is why from time immemorial people have been claiming that the younger generation is going to hell in a handbasket. I don't think that we are necessarily getting any better or worse. I think we are getting different than we were.
I know that certain "facts" are always presented to show that we are getting worse. For instance, people will point out that there have been an unusual number of school shootings recently, and they say that is because kids don't have enough respect for life. Well, my son is presently in a junior in high school and just like me when I was at that age, he has yet to see anybody get shot. The problem is these "facts" are anecdotes. Are they telling us something of importance about the society in general? ... or are they just isolated incidences that are statistical anomalies and signify nothing? Without carefully study to tease out extraneous factors there is no way to tell. And no such studies have ever been done.
The rest of Organic's blog is decrying sexual promiscuousness. I am way to old and happily involved in a monogamous relationship with my wife of 20 years. I am not qualified to pass judgment on anybody else's choice of lifestyle. I would say that what is important is one's own sense of well-being and worth. I would encourage anyone not to do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or worthless ... otherwise enjoy your life ... it is the only one you are going to get.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France