Monogamy is a bad system to Humans

Post Reply New Topic

I think this thread should be in the science thread but since it talks about relations, and since this section has much more traffic then here we go:

From a pure scientific perspective,Monogamy is a bad system for the future generations of Humans. Monogamous might be a important factor for the increase of the inherited genetic diseases/disorders among the human population, why? It's simple , because Monogamy system is giving the opportunity and the right for every damn individual to get married and to have children, whether this individual has good genes or totally messed up genes. Today, almost everyone wants to marry , most men have the chance to have children and to get married , even the dwarfs and the inborn physically handicapped have the opportunity to get married and to have children = a better change to transmit bad genes from one generation to another = increase of # of physically handicapped babies = bad evolution in the long term!

Monogamy has suppressed the important evolutionary role that the female posses: The natural selection.
Female humans,like most primate species, are naturally the main controllers of the natural selection. The females are the ones who supposed to pick the best male in a group (=best genes for future children).
With the silly monogamous system, a lot of women are obliged to pick an unhealthy man as a mate since the gender ratio is almost 1:1 . Men and women are being brainwashed by silly religious ideas and by silly romantic ideas about 1women-1man-forever love s**t which make us hard to accept Polygamy.

The best reproduction system of the future of human's quality is an organized Polygamy :
-Only healthiest men have the right to have babies and women can only marry one of these alpha men. Each Alpha can breed with specified large number of womens.
- Alpha and beta females have the right to breed
-The very omega/unhealthy females have no right to breed
-The beta/omega males have no right to breed.

But then children would lack protection with 1 parent only and If men and women insist to live a "1woman-1man-forever family s**t life" that would make problems , there's a solution for that :
the best solution is the 'social and biological fathers' system , it's a biologically-polygamous system and it's socially-monogamous system at the same time.

Like most species of birds, only alphas can breed with the females but every male(including betas and omegas) can be a social father. An omega/beta male bird picks a female as a life mate to raise her babies with her despite the fact that he's not the biological father of her babies but the babies would gain the protection of 2 parents instead of 1! This is the smartest reproduction system : Best sperm win + Best genes transmitted+ family life (security).

Humans can do that too , we can allow only the alpha males among us to spread their spermas among the married women and their husbands would be the social fathers (betas/omega and even alphas) who would provide the necessary security and protection for the future children but an omega or beta must NOT be allowed to have children with her wife (better to infertile them Lol).

As for the STDs risk's spread , this can be easily controlled if the spemas of Alphas are well-checked in the sperm banks.

With this system , we would assure that the best set of genes among males would be transmitted to the next generation hence better offspring , healthier humans for the future, less probability of genetic diseases and we would assure the necessary protection and father's love for children and every1 would get the necessary affection and sexual life.

Crazy idea I know , but these are just thoughts

This video has loads of profanity.

This is just disguised eugenics...

wow....no thanks.

Interesting arguments as I've never seen a male say females are the ones with should do the selecting. I've never heard a woman say that either.

But all of this just has me thinking...what are "good genes"? Isn't that only relational to what a certain society sees fit as good and attractive?

Are good genes only found in attractive people? What if these people are also dumb?

What if a person is attractive and smart, yet has poor physical or athletic ability?

What if a person has little history of familial diseases and is very athletic but is unattractive in the conventional sense?

Are good genes blue eyes or brown eyes? Dark skin or pale skin? History of cancer of history of heart disease? Autistic traits or no autistic traits?

Maybe romantic love doesn't sound very scientific, but it doesnt place rules and regulations at the societal level for choosing a mate.

You choose a mate because she is pretty, or smart, or funny. But it doesn't mean everyone should choose a mate based on those specific reasons.

The problem with eugenics or selective evolution is that it places societal stanrads on people that are impossible to attain to.

Hitler's theory of the ubermensch or Aryan superiority also meant sterilizing (or not allowing them to mate) those with DEPRESSION for godssakes. The problem I have with this is a depressive parent can give birth to a perfectly fine child (and vice versa) and many great people struggled with bouts of depression. How can we say they cannot mate? We have no idea how their children will be.

And we have no right to enforce what we think is good onto the mating practices of others on the individual level.

Monogamy is fine with me. Who wants several kids form several different men? I can't just say that this is a scientific matter only. In todays' society, that creates too many problems for too many women and their children. Although you can do just fine as a single parent, it may still be a little difficult as society is structured for a single family. Thus, you cant take care of a child without help from someone. If a highly sought after man had 10 kids spread out all over the country, how's he keeping track of them? How's he spending time with them? He'd have to pay child support, and it all woudln't be pretty.

Monogamy just makes things easier.

I think anyone should be "allowed" to breed.

Have you read Louis Lowery's The Giver? Maybe you should see what it's like when a society breeds children in special nurseries for strong genetics and then places them into stable "care families" of one man, one woman.

Huh. I see the results of what you describe. You know, females with several children by different fathers. I don't see that it improves the gene pool. At. All.

Rules of monogamy do not suppress the rules of mother nature. You are wrong, not everyone can get married, especially of they are not high enough up the social pecking order.

The rules of monogamy was created through Mother Nature, and is implanted through various religions. So it has to be a successful system.

Actually you are very wrong now I think of it. Monogamy enforces the rules of Mother Nature. If the rules of Monogamy was enforced like in old Christian days, I would have been a virgin, because I am unable to get married. Fortunately, because of the relaxed rules I had sex with 5 different woman in my life.

[quote]
FOR GOODNESS SAKE COME UP WITH SOMETHING SCIENTIFIC!! !

Human beings in developed countries are in a very lucky position in that we do not need uber-healthy, physically perfect, (in terms of health, I mean, not looks) to be our absolute, all consuming priority. We have a society that can provide support to those who have health problems. This is a great advantage to us since some of the people we support may go on to greatly advance our thinking and technology.

We don't NEED to adopt the measures you suggest, hence we are free to be as monogamous or as polygamous as we see fit, provided that is that someone will have us. A lot of people find that long term, monogamous relationships bring them happiness. In our modern world, they are able to experience this happiness. Hooray!