From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 08:22:21 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Blunderov [mailto:squooker@mweb.co.za]
Sent: 13 January 2002 21:26
To: 'virus@lucifer.com'
Subject: RE: virus: Peep.....peep......... more important than love?
(My mail has been doing some peculiar things and I am not sure if this one
got through or not.Apologies if this is a duplication)Blunderov
"The maternal instinct for progeny survival is the easiest to forward on the
face of the issue.
It is not what I am asking for.
This response is the most often forwarded. In the n=76 times that I have
gotten a response to this question, I have received 43 (now) replies that
deal with moma/baby protect/love.
Let me restate "Extreme Emotional Attachment". Think Adult!
Kirkasaurus Wrecks"
My last response was feeble. I hope this one is better.
Here is what I have found
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html
This site is entitled "Diversity of Primate mating systems"
Here is some of the stuff I have gleaned from it.
The monogamous mating strategy only occurs in species where it is not
possible, or cost effective, for a male to control more than one female.
In the bird species this condition is present because of the parent
intensive nature of their reproductive activities.
It occurs in primates for different reasons. One of the conditions which
makes it difficult for male primates to control more than one female is if
the number of estruses is low. Human females it should be noted have +- 12
estruses per year.
It is also difficult for males to control more than one female when they are
widely dispersed.
(Here is a direct quote from the site)
"In gibbons however, females are very evenly distributed in the environment
and this seems to be because of mutual aggression between females. So a male
might like to have a harem but the females won't have any of it. This has
been difficult to prove experimentally, but they have done playback
experiments. When you play female sounds then the female of a pair will
charge over to the speaker to attack but the male will just sit there and be
a dork. So the females reduce males' options until they have no choice but
to be monogamous......
Monogamy
Ok, so if polygyny is so great then why do some end up being monogamous?
It's certainly not very common:
Birds- 90% monogamous.
Mammals- under 5% monogamous
Primates- 37/200=~18% monogamous.
(Traditional human societies are about 20% monogamous.)
Characteristics of monogamous primates
1. Limited mating opportunities
2. Male investment in offspring is high
3. Male confidence in paternity is high (we're just talking probability
here, not mental awareness)
4. Little sexual dimorphism
5. Territoriality & sex-specific aggression"
One of the effects of monogamy is to reduce competition amongst males. This
would make it possible for reasonably large bands of people to live together
without too much of a violence "overhead".
I recalled L'Ermit's post of the other day....
"[Hermit] Until we became civilized, we lived in a wide variety of exactly
such "family packs" (evidence of burial sites and genetics) even though we
don't know exactly how they were arranged....
....a reasonably large population (500 plus) is required to
allow line shifts when a negative hereditable mutation occurs (1 per 2,500
years in a healthy population. 1 per 3 years where the gene line starts out
as a sea of recessives - as is the current case with humans and some
endangered species)."
<Here Blunderov ventures out on the thin ice of his own conclusions>
"Extreme emotional attachment" tends to promote monogamous behaviour.
Monogamous behaviour has the effect of providing a more diverse gene pool.
This means that there is an enhanced prospect of a favourable inheritable
mutation taking place in a quicker time. Monogamous behaviour at the same
time makes it possible for humans to live in large enough concentrations for
a favourable mutation to have statiscally better chance of "taking root" my
quotes) and becoming a hereditable line. It is also a more disaster
resistant entity than a smaller group.
<Blunderov, heedless of the danger, now ventures some outright speculation>
It seems reasonable to suppose that a species which lives in extended
groups would favour the selection of communication skills.
It seems reasonable to suppose that communication skills would be enhanced
by cognitive skills.
It seems reasonable to suppose that cognitive skills would be enhanced by
selection for awareness/consciousness.
Therefore:
Monogamy is a jolly good thing.
Love is a jolly good thing.
We may owe everything we have to the fact that women menstruate so
frequently.
Yours
Blunderov.
PS I don't understand the genetics. Why is (the human gene pool) "a sea of
recessives - as is the current case with humans and some endangered
species)."? Is this bad?
Thx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT