Monogamy is a bad system to Humans

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, but how many men would want to raise the children of another man knowingly? From what I understand, most children murdered are killed by a non-biological man in the household. Consider how bonobos and chimps do sex. The females, knowing when they are fertile, will let lower-ranking male have sex with them, but when it comes to actually making babies, the females will mate with higher-ranking males. Allowing lower ranking males to have sex apparently keeps the peace and helps alleviate the "bachelor herd" problem. I know I don't want to raise another man's child.

I , would prefer a son who is strong , tall and bold than having a shy , weak ,suffering from chronic disease(i am not talking about autism here) and destined to be bullied . A no-selfish father is the father who wish for his son a better life than his own.

This is the gap in my system . I think that my system is biologically perfect for human's evolution but the only problem is how the brainwashed-for-decades people would accept such a system.

I'm sorry if I come across as a little harsh, but it sounds to me that you are being selfish. You want that "perfect child", which is the same problem that all those curebie parents have.

^^ what's selfish is having a child knowing that he'll suffer by health problems just because i want him to just like me.

So everyone should be an athlete? This sounds like the movie Gattaca

So you're saying that monogamy promotes genetically favorable pairings?

(Disclaimer: I know a lot about animal breeding because animals are one of my obsessions, and I disagree with the practice of comparing it to other forms mate selection; breeding is unique because it is a tightly controlled process orchestrated by a species other than the one that is reproducing and this causes it to differ from other forms of mate selection in numerous ways.)

I do not think that monogamy necessarily promotes genetically favorable mate choices in humans. First, I think it is probably impossible to objectively define what is genetically favorable in one's own species. Even if it could be defined, I think we would find that human mate selection does not always favor it. There is too much variety in the criteria that people use to choose their partners. Some of these criteria go in and out of vogue. On one level, many humans do desire partners that they associate with fertility and abundance, but there is a lot more to it than that. And new reproductive technology is making it even more complicated.

That's just how I see it.

So, was my interpretation of your statement correct or did you mean something different?

wow...where to begin..

True fact - the Chinese ideogram for 'trouble' is made by having two women under one roof..

There are some limited number of societies where polyandry (1 woman, more than one man) is practiced. You don't hear much about them, though.

Even though there's a few places left where polygamy is practiced (but never perfected..., many women there are not big fans of it. In some Muslim societies, women consider it a failure that their husband takes a 2nd wife, it implies they haven't been good enough. There's some substantial support even in those countries for monogamy, serial or not.

And let's be honest; in a society with that much control over breeding, how many of us would be allowed the chance? things that make ya go 'hmmm'....

Who said anything about knowing that one will have a child with health problems? Each child is based on a new blueprint... the two healthiest people in the world could still produce a child with many health problems, or two people rife with health problems could produce a wonderfully healthy child. What I want to do is bring a new soul into this world, and then raise that child to be someone that is more successful than I am.

P.S.: No, I don't want someone exactly like me. If I wanted that, I would clone myself.

True, but the probability of having an ill child will be smaller , natural selection is all probabilities.

And you think that just because I am somehow "defective" by virtue of not being aggressive enough, I shouldn't be allowed to have children? If only the "alpha" people are allowed to have children, you can kiss genetic diversity goodbye...

Perhaps what you should be looking at is our health care system. Before modern health care, children born with certain illnesses often died before the age of 5 (which is why, in antiquity, people often had many children). That was how natural selection worked within humanity. Now with our modern treatments, many once-crippling diseases and disabilities (i.e. polio) became either manageable or non-existent, and these people that would otherwise have died very young are living long lives and having children of their own.

This post was most definitely written by a guy no doubt! Who would actually want to waste their time on someone that spent their life picking up others for meaningless flings? This post made women out to be baby making machines and men to be all about sex. It's just wrong...................................................

You referring to me or the OP?

I was referring to the person who started this thread. No, I know you're not like that. I've read several of your posts. I was cheated on for years and I know how that hurts.....and most of the time it's the innocent people who suffer.

twoshots' guide for reading LePetitPrince

Number 1:

If you need to resort to an ad Hitlerum, you need to spend more time thinking through your response. A lot more time.

This goes for philosophy in general.

Number 2:


Do not make inferences based on your preconceptions with regard to people who actually want to consider genetic quality in reproduction. Strictly speaking, the only thing he has recommended has been to remove the wonton quality of modern reproduction. Any inference with respect to dating habits is not only non-sequitorial, it is irrelevant.

Number 3:


Not all possibilities are created equal. We can play the reproduction game for a practically limitless number of times (a number in probability we like to call "very large"). We are choosing the strategy with the higher expected outcome. Possibility of two invalids producing Atlas needs to be quite high for it to be important on that number of tries.

Number 4:

Arguing against possible choices of genetic "goods" at best disproves that we should make that particular choice. Among a very large number of possible choices.

Remember also that tall healthy individuals are more likely to succeed. This has been empirically observed IIRC.

Well, that's all the evil I have for now. I'll be back to bug you all in the future.

Are you male?