loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
SP and Iron make a good point that evolution/observed behaviour does not necessarily equate to 'right' behaviour.
On the topic of marriage:
Happy to concede that evolution has given us a biology, especially in men, of spreading the seed. However we do not live in a polygamous/polyamorous society and nor have we for a considerable period of time. How then do we explain the institution of marriage. If monogamy is not biological then why is it social? Some kind of sociocultural evolution would appear to have occurred. But why?
Polyamoroy is a model which we can rationalise as working in a hunter-gatherer society, and indeed I understand that there are some such societies still living in this way. In a society like this a men and women mate with multiple other men and women - however caring duties fall to the mother and the tribe as a whole. I suspect that this may also help manage inbreeding in small gene-pools by proving maximum genetic diversity.
These societies are essentially collectivist in nature, there are no great concepts of ownership and food is hunted/gathered/cooked/eaten in groups not individually.
However when agriculture (especially livestock) comes onto the scene we are also introducing ownership, organisation and trade. An individual is responsible for raising and protecting livestock, an individual is responsible for working a farm. Individuals will operate in groups (tribes) with leaders, because this is necessary to defend herds and farms. However crucially they are a group of individuals who trade - which relies on ownership. Specialisation of labour - which can not occur in a collective occurs.
In this environment women can no longer depend on an entire tribe for support because resources are not collective they are owned. The dominant strategy for a woman becomes monogamy with a resource rich man. On the flip-side men can no longer rely on other men to support their children and so their dominant strategy is to amass as many women as they can support, and prevent other men from sleeping with them - polygyny. Also a woman has become a resource for a man a worth amassing for that reason alone.
Also interesting at this point is that the much lower life-expectancy of men (occupational hazard of fighting/warfare) means women may be serial-monogamists having several husbands sequentially. There are some interesting stats that because of this women play a bigger role in our genetic makeup than men.
As society evolved away from farms and towards something we could reasonably call civilisation the economic cost of supporting multiple wives increases and the infant mortality rate declines (removing advantages of having 15 kids in the hope that 2 survive - if 7 survive the costs is now much higher). And so we see what we know as marriage emerging.
As male life-expectancy improved (courtesy of laws we kill each other less frequently) women would no longer need to be serial-monogamists and men ca be more discerning and only marry women without children (less costly). So the concept of the widower and virgin-bride emerges.
Fast-forwarding to the present we are entering an interesting chapter for the evolution of marriage. Women no longer need the support of men to raise a child. This dramatically reduces the incentive for women to marry and more importantly remain in a marriage. Men also have a lower incentive because they don't need to hang around for their children to survive. The disincentive to marry a woman with children is also reduced because her economic capacity can help cover the costs of her existing children.
.......................
Fun fact: My parents are not divorced however I have not yet had a serious relationship with a girl/woman whose parents were not divorced.
On the topic of marriage:
Happy to concede that evolution has given us a biology, especially in men, of spreading the seed. However we do not live in a polygamous/polyamorous society and nor have we for a considerable period of time. How then do we explain the institution of marriage. If monogamy is not biological then why is it social? Some kind of sociocultural evolution would appear to have occurred. But why?
Polyamoroy is a model which we can rationalise as working in a hunter-gatherer society, and indeed I understand that there are some such societies still living in this way. In a society like this a men and women mate with multiple other men and women - however caring duties fall to the mother and the tribe as a whole. I suspect that this may also help manage inbreeding in small gene-pools by proving maximum genetic diversity.
These societies are essentially collectivist in nature, there are no great concepts of ownership and food is hunted/gathered/cooked/eaten in groups not individually.
However when agriculture (especially livestock) comes onto the scene we are also introducing ownership, organisation and trade. An individual is responsible for raising and protecting livestock, an individual is responsible for working a farm. Individuals will operate in groups (tribes) with leaders, because this is necessary to defend herds and farms. However crucially they are a group of individuals who trade - which relies on ownership. Specialisation of labour - which can not occur in a collective occurs.
In this environment women can no longer depend on an entire tribe for support because resources are not collective they are owned. The dominant strategy for a woman becomes monogamy with a resource rich man. On the flip-side men can no longer rely on other men to support their children and so their dominant strategy is to amass as many women as they can support, and prevent other men from sleeping with them - polygyny. Also a woman has become a resource for a man a worth amassing for that reason alone.
Also interesting at this point is that the much lower life-expectancy of men (occupational hazard of fighting/warfare) means women may be serial-monogamists having several husbands sequentially. There are some interesting stats that because of this women play a bigger role in our genetic makeup than men.
As society evolved away from farms and towards something we could reasonably call civilisation the economic cost of supporting multiple wives increases and the infant mortality rate declines (removing advantages of having 15 kids in the hope that 2 survive - if 7 survive the costs is now much higher). And so we see what we know as marriage emerging.
As male life-expectancy improved (courtesy of laws we kill each other less frequently) women would no longer need to be serial-monogamists and men ca be more discerning and only marry women without children (less costly). So the concept of the widower and virgin-bride emerges.
Fast-forwarding to the present we are entering an interesting chapter for the evolution of marriage. Women no longer need the support of men to raise a child. This dramatically reduces the incentive for women to marry and more importantly remain in a marriage. Men also have a lower incentive because they don't need to hang around for their children to survive. The disincentive to marry a woman with children is also reduced because her economic capacity can help cover the costs of her existing children.
.......................
Fun fact: My parents are not divorced however I have not yet had a serious relationship with a girl/woman whose parents were not divorced.
Last edited:
). But anyway, marriage gives a chance to formalise a relationship which is an important symbol of commitment for all involved, not only the partners, but also the other family members.
