Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by wegfawefgawefg on Sunday January 28, 2024 @11:37AM
(#39167291)
There is a hum bio lecture on this topic in apes by robert sapolski. Regarding herram vs nonherram ape species and how that has rippled out into many other physical differences between males and females. emergent sexual dimorphism. check it out. its from stanford. on youtube
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by nradov on Sunday January 28, 2024 @11:44AM
(#39167380)
Monogamy is somewhat recent as a norm in human societies. DNA analysis shows that in ancient times, far more women than men had offspring. Many of the men died young and/or were kept as slaves. This type of society can be stable for a long time — until the slaves revolt.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by icegreentea2 on Sunday January 28, 2024 @11:49AM
(#39167430)
I would not argue that such a society cannot persist for a long time. I would argue that monogamy(ish) is more stable, hence its success.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by jinjin2 on Sunday January 28, 2024 @12:56PM
(#39168057)
This paternity worry seems to be a leftover of agrarian societies where it is important to ensure inheritance. In tribal societies, as we lived for millenia, it was much less of a worry as raising the kids was a tribal concern.
There is a famous quote from a Montagnais Native American to a Jesuit priest that tries to tell him that he should prevent his wife from having other relationships or he would risk bringing up another mans child: "Thou hast no sense. You french people love only your own children; but we love all the children of our tribe" - https://sexgendersoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/4-montagnai...
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by Viliam1234 on Sunday January 28, 2024 @01:51PM
(#39168630)
> You french people love only your own children; but we love all the children of our tribe
It's not just about loving your children, but also about feeding them. Children can't survive on love alone.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by jinjin2 on Sunday January 28, 2024 @02:52PM
(#39169179)
I guess the point here is that the tribe feeds the children. It is not up to the parents alone.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by s1artibartfast on Sunday January 28, 2024 @02:09PM
(#39168813)
Tribal or not, Paternal worry is also fundamental genetic strategy if you spend any resources caring for your children, as many mammals do.
The person who raises only others children is not longer expressed in the gene line
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by azmodeus on Sunday January 28, 2024 @05:32PM
(#39170497)
If the tribe is closely related, it can be a good strategy as a large part of their genes would still spread
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by toasterlovin on Sunday January 28, 2024 @06:49PM
(#39171150)
This gets brought up to explain why homosexuality is partially genetic and the math just does not work out.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by s1artibartfast on Sunday January 28, 2024 @05:40PM
(#39170571)
sure, but the returns quickly diminish with relatedness. A child is worth two nephews/nieces, 8 first cousins once removed, or 32 second cousins once removed.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by pests on Monday January 29, 2024 @04:50AM
(#39174545)
That's assuming none of your nephews or first cousins never reproduce with each other down the line. Also consider it's not exactly your dna you are trying to pass on but your families. Then you are someone's child and nephew etc and those people want there genes passed on just as much as you do. So by raising others in the local community you help pass on your father's or uncle's DNA.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by NickM on Sunday January 28, 2024 @01:14PM
(#39168220)
This all sounds great as a “just so” story but then you have species like Bonobos that are one of humanity’s closest relatives and they are pretty much the opposite of monogamous. So clearly it’s not naturally inevitable that intelligent species with complex social structures end up with monogamy as the norm.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by nairboon on Sunday January 28, 2024 @03:37PM
(#39169577)
Bonobos might be intelligent, but they haven't yet been on the moon as far as i know. You kind of need a bit more intelligence to pull this one off.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by s1artibartfast on Sunday January 28, 2024 @07:06PM
(#39171276)
Interestingly, due to the promiscuous mating behavior of female bonobos, a male cannot be sure which offspring are his. As a result, the entirety of parental care in bonobos is assumed by the mothers.
It is also worth noting that while they aren't monogamous, Females are still selective, mating primarily with high status males with more to offer.
Re:Syphilis microbe's family has plagued humans for millennia
by toasterlovin on Sunday January 28, 2024 @07:01PM
(#39171240)
IMO it’s a lot more complex than paternity. Concerns about sexual propriety are actually fairly symmetric and not at all one-sided. Men are also penalized by potential mates if they have a reputation for sleeping around. My hunch is that both sexes invest a lot of whatever resources they have (money, time, effort, etc.) into a relationship and they want that relationship to be stable. And sexual propriety is a strong indicator of whether someone will be a stable long term mate.
The reality is that people are biased towards their own biological children (on average), and men would in generally really prefer to raise their own child, rather than someone else's (on average). Raising a child requires an immense amount of resources.
If you presume that men who discover that their partner have slept around, and their child is not theirs, and worse, they've sunk like 3 years of resources in keeping this kid alive, are even just slightly more likely to be liabilities to society, then you could see why such a societal strategy might emerge.
The converse situation (men sleeping around) is somewhat different (though obviously related). The reality is that if you want to retain an approximately balanced gender balance in a population (perhaps because uh... you might need to compete in raiding/warfare), then you -cannot- have even a significant minority of men having exclusive access to more than one female without having significant societal stability issues. Combine this with men like knowing that their child is theirs, quickly settles you into "monogamous-ish".
And it's "ish" because there are always exceptions.