Promiscuity

[Pessimism]

Freezing temperatures were not good for individuals in the Ice Ages. But for the species - that is for the descendants of those who survived - the frigid weather was a benefactor. Parents didn't have to worry that their daughters would mate with worthless young men. When nature gets rough, there are no worthless young men! From the standpoint of eugenics, the hostile climate raised the intelligence level of the survivors' descendants sufficiently to pave the way for civilisation.

I'm sorry but there are a number of false claims in this excerpt alone. For one no scientist can state a factual claim as "the cold weather was a benefactor" - first of all it's an assumption, 2nd is it's a crappy assumption. There may have been some advantages to the colder climates, but weather kills and acts indiscriminately; and the fact that neanderthalensis was the only being adapted enough naturally to survive "ice age" weather says a lot about how much of a "benefactor" it was to normal homo sapiens; the fact was that even with there benefits they could not survive with the climate the way it was without a strong shelter and a supply of food which are hard to come by in a scarce landscape.

Another thing...parents ALWAYS have to worry about worthless young men (and women). Although the intelligence of a being is important, so is the raw physical strength and abilities of one. Power can always replace intelligence if intelligence is not cultivated and used in the correct context (and vice versa). Just because the climate was rough does not mean that the best of the best were only allowed to breed, and hostility does not raise the intelligence of people. And I have to mention that although many throw civilization around as if it was culture, it is not the same thing. Even if many ice age humans (near the end of the ice age anyway) had banded together and created a society, the first recognized civilizations were in Egypt and Mesopotamia. This however does not mean that it is safe to assume there were no concepts of culture back then and that there weren't any smaller civilizations either; the ones recognized had to have had an origin somewhere.

Some of the near relatives of Heidelberg Man, whose remains were found only 100 miles south of the furthest extension of the ice sheet, must have lived through the 40,000 year Mindel Glaciation.

The Heidelbergensis fossil was found in germany which was on the rim and somewhat (but not very far inward) of Germany. not to mention that Heidelbergensis man was just a damn jaw bone that may have been a missing link to relate homo sapiens to homo neanderthalensis, however if I remember a recent genetics test seemed to say neanderthalensis was of a different lineage than homo sapiens; and heidelbergensis was shown more to be an ancestor to neanderthalensis than homo sapiens due to the structure of the jaw bone and theoretical occipital bun.

"It took three more Ice Ages, the Riss Glaciation and Wurm I and II to raise the inventive quality to the level that resulted in the New Stone Age, when tools were made more expertly and in greater variety."

What tool ages are you even referring too? Auschelian (spelling?) was common among hominids before neanderthalensis (Homo Nean used mousterian tools themselves); and humans depending on what region you are looking at got all the way up to the magdalenian era which was boats and bows and arrows. prior to that the chattelperonian was common to many regions - of course the magdelinian era came far after the extinction of neanderthalensis. To just say "tone age tools" is vague

 

[Norsemaiden]

Did you notice that most of my post was quoted from a book, so the language used is not my own. Also, it was from the mid 70s, and while the idea that fecklessness is a characteristic that could not genetically survive the ice ages (although it would creep back afterwards) is still self-evident, there will be some details which are not completely up-to-date I expect.

The people who survived the iceages like the Solutreans and the Kurgans, were barbarians and barbarians did not have civilisations, but they went to many countries throughout the world and they started them. A newly discovered fact is that the Solutreans were the first Americans - before the Red Indians.

Caucasian mummies were found in China as well, for example.

The difference between barbarians and savages is that barbarians have evolved in the areas affected by the iceages and savages haven't. That is my observation. Don't you think it's valid?

I also have to mention that the conditions in Africa today are very different from how they were before the population was made to explode (with tragic results, leading to ever larger famines) by the do gooders from the West.

Regarding the Sahara desert - people only started living around the edge of the desert 500,000 years ago. Also, the Sahara has been created by desertification, and it was green and lush in the past. It was much wetter there in the iceages.

Eskimos have been living in the ice climate for so short a time that it is completely irrelevant.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Promiscuity, however, is a strategy for reproducing which works in terms of spreading a male's genes around, if the monogamous couples are having very few children and the promiscuous men are managing to impregnate a larger number of women, then they will be more genetically successful.

partial explination of why males are more promiscuous than females (in general)

 

[Horus]

Isn't there actually a scientific explanation of why men are more promiscuous than women?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Isn't there actually a scientific explanation of why men are more promiscuous than women?

yeah there is
i was just to lazy to find a link to a website about it

 

[Demilich]

here's an idea i was thinking about while reading this thread:

in a culture where language exists to describe such abstract concepts as promiscuity, and social stigmas are attached to various facets of promiscuity, an entirely new level of value can be attached to monogamy/promiscuity beyond genetic inclination. social pressures, internal/external philosophical debates, etc. could cause people to realign their views on promiscuity and shift from being monogamous to completely promiscuous simply based on a change in understanding of rhetoric surrounding the issue.

further more, it is rather shortsighted to associate all promiscuity unhealthiness, STDs, in particular AIDS. Not all promiscuity relates to intercourse or genital contact. Doesn't this expand the spectrum of possible health risks? Unless we're discussing promiscuity simply in terms of the drive to reproduce, which is kind of odd.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The scientific reason for why men are more likely to be promiscuous than women is because men have millions of sperm which could result in a child, and it only takes minutes for them to insminate a woman. So a man could have many more children than a woman can. She can only have a smaller number and she has to have it in her womb for 9 months, so there's no point in getting having sex to reproduce at that time. (Any objections along the lines of that sex is not only for reproduction are irrelevent. While that is a undoubtedly true, the biological urge is limited generally by the fact that sex drive evolved for the purpose of reproduction, and is thus naturally stronger in the male.) Women can expect to reproduce to their maximum if they so wish, but men can't and they must compete with other men who might impregnate the women before they can.

Monogamy is a departure from this which benefits women in the sense that they get a partner who helps rear the children, and it benefits the man in that he doesn't have to compete with other men. In nature this competition generally means a small minority of males fertilising a large number of females while the majority fail to. Human nature always complicates all this - but that is the bare scientific bones of the explanation.

There is a possiblility that monogamy may have evolved in some cultures because of a disease like AIDs causing a change in sexual habits. If so, history has not recorded it.

 

[Demilich]

Isn't it possible for a polygamist of any kind to put just as much time/effort/resources into raising children as a monogamist husband? All I was saying is that the social constitution and stigma surrounding promiscuity produces an influence over promiscuity which has nothing to do with men's biological propensity to reproduce more than women.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Isn't it possible for a polygamist of any kind to put just as much time/effort/resources into raising children as a monogamist husband? All I was saying is that the social constitution and stigma surrounding promiscuity produces an influence over promiscuity which has nothing to do with men's biological propensity to reproduce more than women.

Yes I know that's what you were saying and it sounds right enough. Someone else was wondering about why women are less promiscuous than men, and my answer related to that. Certainly a polygamist could put a lot of time into raising children although, he would presumably have more children, plus the wives to split his time amongst. A lot of people seem to overlook the aspect with polygamy that as numbers of women are roughly equal to numbers of men, this system leaves more men without access to women (apart from prostitutes). This has been known to increase the danger of women being taken by force, as well as homosexuality (as a result of desperation rather than choice). It has a disruptive affect on social relations to some extent.

 

[Demilich]

That is one thing I always wondered about polygamy. Though polygamy itself does not imply a relationship between one man and many women, but could be many men and/or many women, most of the cases I've seen have taken that same form of one man with many wives. In many cases, these wives all cohabit with the man and raise children together, making many of the processes of parenthood easier in the process.

Surely, polygamy is a basis for subjugation of women in a lot of cases. I wish there were more polygamists out there living in more equitable situations.

Also, I was thinking of men in monogamous relationships who are unfaithful to their wives. Their sleeping around doesn't necessarily mean that they're not raising/treating their kids and family properly. I know in most cases this follows along with it for a variety of reasons, but I think it is important not to condemn all who cheat for the actions of some.

 

[Pessimism]

Polygyny (many women, one man) is the most common form of marital practice found in the world today (about 60% of th world if I remember...I could be completely wrong though). Usually this method was brought about because of the conditions needed for it to exist, such as the the non dividing of land for family, and of course the extra help around the living areas. Polyandry (one woman, many men) takes up less than 1% of all societies, but it's beneficial to the areas they live in too.

Since polygynists take up most of the worlds marital status - I would assume that there are some equitable traits.