I think monogamy spread because St. Augustine made it part of the Roman Catholic dogma that became the foundation for all Christian dogma, Christianity took over Europe, and then Europe colonized pretty much the rest of the world. I tend to think if things had gone differently, we'd be looking at a polygamous world.
(Edit: Did I just argue sexuality is a social construct? Oy vey...)
>I think monogamy spread because St. Augustine made it
> part of the Roman Catholic dogma that became the
> foundation for all Christian dogma
Sort of - I'm under the impression that Greek and Roman monogamy was more "soft monogamy" so to speak. You had your wife, but then you were free to do whatever your like beyond that as long as you didn't break your duty to the family, yes?
Interesting, most of the patriarchs in the Bible were polygamous, it was a famous rabbi's teachings (forget which one) that mandated monogamy as the way. For instance, here's Wikipedia on Abraham:
"Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider him father of the people of Israel. For Jews and Christians this is through his son Isaac,[2] by his wife Sarah; for Muslims, he is a prophet of Islam and the ancestor of Muhammad through his other son Ishmael, born to him by Sarah's handmaiden, Hagar."
King Solomon was known for his many wives. I think hard monogamy - no prostitution, no bisexuality, no mistresses, concubines, or sexual relations with slaves - was largely established as the norm by Christianity. I know the Romans and Greeks definitely had other lovers and orgies and things like that, whereas once the Roman Catholic Church was established by Constantine this sort of thing was outlawed pretty quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I#Nicene_Christianit...
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558598/jewish/...
In the third link there is a rather interesting theory as to how it all started(hint: women made us do it).
When you mean monogamy do you mean sexually exclusive or socially monogamous? There is some evidence to suggest the later more than the former. [0] And some counter arguments. [1]
[0] Barber, Nigel "Monogamy is social - not sexual" ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201007/m...
[1] Johnson, Sue "Monogamy: are we - can we be - monogamous?" ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hold-me-tight/201003/mon...
In evolutionary terms, a woman would want to give the man the impression that she'd never mate with another if he was gone or away. Whether that's true is a different question.
The human switch from a visible estrus cycle was a change which allowed monogamy-with-cheating to be a much more feasible strategy than with earlier primates - who knew when mating was going to happen.
I actually wouldn't say that monogamy-with-cheating is the only human social/sexual pattern since humans also evolved an incredibly ability to change their behavior based on their social system.
But don't assume that a society that overtly pushes monogamy will actually wind-up with husbands always fathering their official children.
I do not mean to make you think that I believe that monogamy is "the only way", however, psychology plays a huge role in our sexual and social relationships. Many women prefer a more intimate one-on-one relationship, while men do not; or so it has been said.
In evolutionary terms, a woman would want to give the man the impression that she'd never mate with another if he was gone or away. Whether that's true is a different question.
I do not believe that all women want to cheat on their spouse. More data from a wider set is needed, and even then it is a matter of biology and social context; random chance.
But don't assume that a society that overtly pushes monogamy will actually wind-up with husbands always fathering their official children.
I did mean to imply that I did. It really depends on the social context and size of the group. A smaller group will be more apt to provide more intimate care than a larger group. It was not my intention to put the blame on the male gender by any means. Women and men have an equal role to play in the physical and mental rearing of any child.
Wars and fighting provide a ready surplus of women. In an Amazon tribe, the Yanomamo, I believe, 40% of all males die by murder or fighting. Recent genetic studies show that we have twice as many female ancestors as men. (Sorry, about the lack of citation.) Today jails, drug use, and general decrepitude keep large numbers of males out of circulation.
The most likely scenario. A million and one scenarios can happen but what is more likely to happen and what has happen.
When we imagine this apocalyptic doom of population, and mankind, we imagine a perfect world in some much that we think everyone will breed with everyone. Some men my have a problem(ED), some women may not be able to bare children(thus the creation of fertility gods), and some-be it male or female- may not want to "do it" period(homosexuality). We may also still hold old world values/moral beliefs, such as monogamy, dear.
The quote posted by Obiterdictum[1] from Orwell, one of my favorite writers, is very intriguing to me. The part that stands out the most is:
''But this is a fallacy based on the notion that human beings can be bred like animals.'' -One the topic of utilitarianistic gender values
Animals in captivity are usually force breed to maintain a linage or specific trait. Animals can build emotional bonds, however, in the wild we see very few mammal species that follow the same guidelines we find social acceptable[2]. For us to believe that every male will mate with every female we must also believe that every female will mate with every male, and vica versa.
Part of monogamy is breed into our subconscious, part is based on proximity, part is due to social context, and part is, well, emotional[3]. There are countless stories of widows never marring after their husbands are gone[see Penelope in The Odyssey]. We, many of us, enjoy monogamous relationships. Something about them brings us a joy that is very hard to put a value on. We can be tricked into them, stockholm syndrome, we can even be forced into them, rape, but we can rarely artificially create them, Truman show.
We must also asses the value of monogamous relation ships versus open relation ships(I am sorry I do not know the proper word for it); thinking that everyone will value them the same. I do not have enough data to pass judgment, although, the animal kingdom does seem to be doing well for itself ;).
Then we have to break down the proper breeding matrices. No one has said anything about age distribution in population. So are we assuming all the males/females too young/old to breed died OR are we not including them in the first count? To inspire discussion I will say we never included them in the first count...but then the situation doesn't really work as we have a new generation coming of age at some point; a boost if you will. Hypothetically, using the example given with a population size 150(aftermath) we are left with 100 women and 50 men. Breeding can be done in at least 1 day; a week at the utmost. Now those women are taken pretty much out of commission at the ~7,8,9 month. That leaves 100 women more vulnerable to starvation, illness, miscarriage, death giving birth. We also do not have the number of still births. What is the status of food? How did this population destruction occur? Too many variables.
For every perfect scenario there exists an imperfect one just as likely to occur as the latter. No person, be it male or female, is more valuable because they were born with a functioning set of genitalia. Value is always in the eye of the beholder[see currency, trade, marketing].
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1635248
[2]http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.ht...
[3] http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346monogamyAnimals.html
[4]http://www.mythweb.com/odyssey/book01.html#notes5back
I had to edit and remove some of my comment as it became more of a rant than an acceptable comment. The tl;dr version is, we are all different and thus behave differently. Some may be more willing to breed for the sake of it while others not so much, however, we can all be conditioned so that we are prepared for such a situation. I am not condoning this. I feel that place male and female on a scale is boarding the lines of eugenics- to which I am more opposed than I am for. Some men are strong, while others are weak. Some women are stronger than a weak man. Some men are cowards, others are not. Some women are brave, others are not. Measuring strength is easy, measuring other- not so physical traits- is harder.