Monogamy in Humans: Natural or Not?

[Dr. Nosophoros]

[youtube]r1uR95pQhsM[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Russia nazi party s‬‏

 

[Oneatatime]

I take your point that 'natural' may be understood in different ways, and hence may become an unhelpful descriptive unless it is defined from the outset. But assuming I use 'natural' in its literal sense in English [adjective
1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. -courtesy of Dictionary.com] Given this usage, how is it 'not the case' that there is a standard against which what is natural to a species can be determined? Life-sciences define these standards; unless you mean something different by 'natural' than I do.



Yes, very true - behavioral sciences confirm you in this opinion; at least, I can follow that reasoning up to your conclusion that defining behaviors as natural or not is a bad thing in any circumstance. There, it seems to me a very wide leap to draw that conclusion from what seem to me to be rather unrelated facts about human sociology.

On the contrary; environmental and life sciences reveal that we really do need to define and understand the nature of ourselves and the rest of the living world, and follow up that understanding with practical application, in order to survive as a species. When we draw boundaries in places that are *ahem* unnatural, we 'invite disaster born out of inflexibility'.



Here you've demonstrated one of the stereotypes I object to; 'monogamy' and 'polygamy' only mean single versus multiple mates at one time. There's no gender attached, but in using polygamy above you assume it immediately to pertain to males. I could just as easily point out that when and if the number of women catastrophically diminished, it would be practical for the women to practice polygamy, or more specifically, polyandry. But that's not really the point, because it requires an extremity of situation.

As for your second example of male predominance in a society, that has been the case more often than not in recent human history (and the author of the article has a few interesting things to say about that). In matriarchal society, it was understood that women had the natural right to select their mate(s), as we're the ones who bear the children. In such cases, more often than not a woman would choose to bear children to different men; with sound biological results, in that she thereby mixed up the genepool and prevented stagnation. :yes:

At this stage of human development, however, the need to reproduce has diminished (and in fact, we're overpopulating). The hormonal urges remain, because they are *ahem* 'natural' biochemical processes. However, a healthy view of our sexuality - to include our sexual biochemistry - is long overdue; in development, yes, but late.

The terms natural/unatural, when it comes to describing things, are generally used as another way of expressing whether or not we approve of something, with the unnatural object being viewed as being in some way degenerate or abonormal when really its just different. As such when applying these terms we are making value-judgements based on our own views and therefore simply dividing the world up into catagories that are consistant with the individuals views even if in practice the catagories are meaningless.

I studied the biological sciences and one thing that becomes readily apparant is that the natural world doesn't fit into neat catagories, and that many the terms such as 'species' or 'life' aren't so clearly defined as they initially sound. One of the more commonly accepted definitions of species, a reprodutively isolated population, isn't what many people would consider a species because they would judge this simply on similar two things looks rather than considering genetic or behaviours differences.

That isn't to say that life can't be organised in terms of their evolutionary relatedness on the basis of genetics or morphology, but rather than the things are rarely so clear-cut and its important to be willing to accept a bit of fuzziness around the edges. Indeed the tree of life has been redescribed as somethig more like the tanged bush of life because life consists of countless interacting lineages rather than the direct and tidy lineages that you find in most science textbooks.

Fundamentaly what this boils down to is our desire to catagorise the world because it makes it easier for us to live our lives. Such approach can be useful but it can also be misleading, even dangerous when it acts as an incentive to cause harm as in the case of hetersexuality being seen as natural and homosexualty unnatural.

You are of course correct in pointing out my bias towards male dominance because women can and do choose their mates. This does however assume that women will find themselves in a culture where they are free to choose rather than being subject to violence and rape when they refuse a males advances. Under such circumstances where males are willing to resort to violence and rape to establish their dominance over both females and males, women are unfortunately at a significant disadvantage.

 

[gnomon]

I have a real problem with the article in the OP. For one it's the concept of unnatural. It's a useless concept. If a human being engages in an action than I have some news......it's natural. Barring evidence that an alien or supernatural force took over the individuals will........it's natural. The term unnatural, and natural for that matter, should be consigned to the dustbin of language.

My second problem is the author of the article relying on the actions of other primates to prove a point. Just because a genetically similar species engages in a certain behavior does not mean that another species will "normally" engage in that behavior. It's absurd.

In my opinion it's a poorly written article which is pretty much par for science journalism. As well, what the human species may have done some many thousands of years ago is kind of out of context on the evolving nature of our own species. Which brings us back to the use of the terms natural and unnatural. I'm sitting in an air conditioned, artificially lit room typing out this post on a computer while watching images of other human beings transmitted from a small disc inserted into a blue ray player and later on I'll fetch my food from the freezer. Were they doing that 10,000 years ago? It's a different kind of behavior.

 

[bain-druie]

I have a real problem with the article in the OP. For one it's the concept of unnatural. It's a useless concept. If a human being engages in an action than I have some news......it's natural. Barring evidence that an alien or supernatural force took over the individuals will........it's natural. The term unnatural, and natural for that matter, should be consigned to the dustbin of language.

My second problem is the author of the article relying on the actions of other primates to prove a point. Just because a genetically similar species engages in a certain behavior does not mean that another species will "normally" engage in that behavior. It's absurd.

In my opinion it's a poorly written article which is pretty much par for science journalism. As well, what the human species may have done some many thousands of years ago is kind of out of context on the evolving nature of our own species. Which brings us back to the use of the terms natural and unnatural. I'm sitting in an air conditioned, artificially lit room typing out this post on a computer while watching images of other human beings transmitted from a small disc inserted into a blue ray player and later on I'll fetch my food from the freezer. Were they doing that 10,000 years ago? It's a different kind of behavior.

I respect your issues with the article in the OP; I agree it's not the pinnacle of scientific knowledge, and rather typical of mass-media scientific journalism. However, I think that once you accept that's what it is, it does a pretty good job of making a point. We'll just have to disagree on that!

As to the definition of 'natural', I addressed that earlier, and I disagree with your definition of it. If it were in fact understood as you describe, then yeah, it would be a useless word. However, language evolves, like everything else - so perhaps we are in need of a new term. I don't see why it's difficult or problematic, and I still find it useful - but by all means, if there's a replacement that has higher specificity and potentially equal usability, nominate it.

Your problem with the author 'relying' on the behavior of other species to make a point, however, I find to be invalid. The behavior of other primates was used as supportive data, not primary. It is scientifically acceptable to make associations based on similarity, and there's plenty of justification for it biologically. The main evidence for his point is human behavior, historically as well as present-day, with support from anatomical structure and so forth.

Using technological advances to argue proof of established biological change is an unsupported premise. Sure, our technology changes our lifestyle, which does in time affect our biology. The key in evolution is time; my children will not evolve an extra appendage to manage the Wii remote with, or an extra frontal lobe to process modern technological data in. Technology is also still in its infancy, and has not even begun to stand the test of time. It's all very tenuous in terms of life on this planet. Therefore, I don't think it really makes your point. :no:

 

[bain-druie]

The terms natural/unatural, when it comes to describing things, are generally used as another way of expressing whether or not we approve of something, with the unnatural object being viewed as being in some way degenerate or abonormal when really its just different. As such when applying these terms we are making value-judgements based on our own views and therefore simply dividing the world up into catagories that are consistant with the individuals views even if in practice the catagories are meaningless.

I studied the biological sciences and one thing that becomes readily apparant is that the natural world doesn't fit into neat catagories, and that many the terms such as 'species' or 'life' aren't so clearly defined as they initially sound. One of the more commonly accepted definitions of species, a reprodutively isolated population, isn't what many people would consider a species because they would judge this simply on similar two things looks rather than considering genetic or behaviours differences.

That isn't to say that life can't be organised in terms of their evolutionary relatedness on the basis of genetics or morphology, but rather than the things are rarely so clear-cut and its important to be willing to accept a bit of fuzziness around the edges. Indeed the tree of life has been redescribed as somethig more like the tanged bush of life because life consists of countless interacting lineages rather than the direct and tidy lineages that you find in most science textbooks.

Fundamentaly what this boils down to is our desire to catagorise the world because it makes it easier for us to live our lives. Such approach can be useful but it can also be misleading, even dangerous when it acts as an incentive to cause harm as in the case of hetersexuality being seen as natural and homosexualty unnatural.

You are of course correct in pointing out my bias towards male dominance because women can and do choose their mates. This does however assume that women will find themselves in a culture where they are free to choose rather than being subject to violence and rape when they refuse a males advances. Under such circumstances where males are willing to resort to violence and rape to establish their dominance over both females and males, women are unfortunately at a significant disadvantage.

Thank you for this excellent explanation of your problem with the terms 'natural' and 'unnatural'. I agree that they're used to denote moral approval, which is not the intended meaning, and as I said above, language evolves too - so maybe we need a new term. :yes:

I completely agree with you about categorization.

You're right that women are anatomically at a disadvantage when it comes to sheer muscle mass; however, brute force and violence is by no means universally acceptable as a means to an end. Women as effective leaders are certainly in the minority in known human history (Elizabeth I, Jeanne d'Arc, and one of my personal favorites, Boudicca the warrior queen, being a few examples); but when they are effective leaders, the men *and* women who respect them as worthy of that position protect them more than adequately. This is no different from male leaders who are protected by a bodyguard; just rarer.

Your average woman up against your average man in a physical death-match is almost certainly doomed; but when considering a social structure there are other equally important factors. Numbers, for one. The group's moral code, for another. Even among prison populations, rapists are extremely low on the totem pole, and often receive in turn what they have dished out.

Evolutionarily speaking, self-preservation instinct keeps most men from being rapists and other varieties of violent criminal.