Polygamy

[Joker37]

If an typical human male were to dedicate his life to producing off-spring in a polygamy environment, biologically how many children would he be able to produce if he had access to infinite women? And biologically how many children can a typical woman produce in the same environment but with infinite men?

 

What does everyone think about polygamy? Why is polygamy seen today by many societies to be morally wrong? I think if atheism dominates and becomes the major belief of the world polygamy may be a future possibility. Think about the number of children each person could make. We humans could dominate the universe!

[SowWisdom]

Well actually, polygamy is how 'we' got to be 'here' in the first place. Monogamy is socially and legally enforced in many modern cultures, but it is not a naturally evolved state of humanity. In nature, there are few animals that keep to one mate for life. For humans, some claim it is a mark of civility, but in all actuality, it is a mark of barbarity. Regression rather than advancement.

 

Monogamy has spawned jealousy, envy, guilt, remorse, regret, and every other emotion a human must endure as a result of the unreasonable restrictions placed on both man and woman. Polygamy could actually alleviate a lot of this. But the social stigma attached to it is born of the reproductive restrictions placed on us socially, economically, etc, etc....

 

However, some aspects of monogamy would benefit evolutionary polygamy in ways most are unwilling to accept or discuss. But that is a topic for another day.

 

As for dominating the 'universe', we already do. Who else is out there (wink,wink)?

[modest]

Welcome to ScienceForums, SW :)

 

Well actually, polygamy is how 'we' got to be 'here' in the first place.

 

No doubt, both polygamy and monogamy are 'how we got here' in the sense that our ancestors were, at some point or another, both polygamous and monogamous.

 

Monogamy is socially and legally enforced in many modern cultures, but it is not a naturally evolved state of humanity.

 

Is it not?

 

In nature, there are few animals that keep to one mate for life.

 

True, less than 10% of mammals pair in lifelong bonds, but this says nothing of humanity. Whether or not lions or birds are naturally polygamous says nothing of whether or not humans naturally are for the simple reason that humans are not lions or birds. We could well be part of the minority when it comes to monogamous mammals.

 

 

For humans, some claim it is a mark of civility, but in all actuality, it is a mark of barbarity. Regression rather than advancement.

 

To engage in monogamy is to regress to an earlier state of humanity? This would mean that humans (all humans) earlier in history were more likely to be monogamous. It this right?

 

Monogamy has spawned jealousy, envy, guilt, remorse, regret, and every other emotion a human must endure as a result of the unreasonable restrictions placed on both man and woman.

 

Yeah, you could probably say that. Then again... someone else could just as rightly say the same of polygamy, so... :shrug:

 

~modest

[modest]

Welcome, as well, Joker :)

 

If an typical human male were to dedicate his life to producing off-spring in a polygamy environment, biologically how many children would he be able to produce if he had access to infinite women?

 

Men are usually fertile and able to produce healthy and viable offspring well into their 60's. The rate of fertility, however, falls off. Assuming, as an average, that a male of the species can impregnate 2 women per day, and that the survival rate is rather high, this would translate to about 32 thousand offspring.

 

Infinite women is kind of reaching though :hihi:

 

And biologically how many children can a typical woman produce in the same environment but with infinite men?

 

The number of male partners would not be an overly significant factor. A quick google search finds that the most children born to one woman is 69 (including multiple births)

 

Why is polygamy seen today by many societies to be morally wrong?

 

I think most social norms evolve because they are in some way useful to that society. Ancient Jewish people set down a number of rules, like not eating the meat of diseased animals or not killing. These morals no doubt served the community in some useful way. Monogamy probably has similarly been found useful to cultures both past and present

 

This does not necessarily mean that it is useful to every society nor that it is innate to humanity. It may be, but I'm not really sure. Perhaps an in-depth investigation could reveal the truth of that.

 

I think if atheism dominates and becomes the major belief of the world polygamy may be a future possibility.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

Atheism just means "a lack of belief in god". It is not a belief system. I'd imagine there could be plenty of atheistic belief systems which endorse polygamy and many which condemn it. Humanism, for example, does not usually endorse polygamy and it is an atheistic belief system.

 

In fact, most examples of belief systems which endorse polygamy that I can think of at the moment, like Mormonism and Islam (or, at least, certain interpretations of Islam) are not atheistic.

 

No, I don't think an increase in atheism would necessarily lead to an increase in polygamy. It may lead to a decrease in the practice. It's tough to say.

 

Think about the number of children each person could make. We humans could dominate the universe!

 

Well... this assumes that making lots of children is an atheistic thing to do. I don't see how "I want to make lots of children" necessarily follows from "I'm an atheist".

 

On the other hand, I do know of religions which command their followers to make lots of children. Genesis 1:28 for example.

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

Welcome to Hypography, both SW and Joker. We hope you can learn here, because there are several assumptions in your posts that warrant some criticism.

 

If an typical human male were to dedicate his life to producing off-spring in a polygamy environment, biologically how many children would he be able to produce if he had access to infinite women? And biologically how many children can a typical woman produce in the same environment but with infinite men?

No doubt a man can have many more children than a woman. However, given that the proportion in which they are born is half-and-half, the number of women in the population remains a limitation on demographic increase (apart from the fact that this planet is already overcrowded).

 

What does everyone think about polygamy? Why is polygamy seen today by many societies to be morally wrong? I think if atheism dominates and becomes the major belief of the world polygamy may be a future possibility. Think about the number of children each person could make. We humans could dominate the universe!

God is far from being the only driver in society against polygamy. Instincts are a very strong thing and we're condemned to live with them.

 

Monogamy is socially and legally enforced in many modern cultures, but it is not a naturally evolved state of humanity.

Neither is polygamy. Our species is a rather unfortunate mess, in which Woman needs to be sure that Man will support her through the whole thing and has strong instincts to watch out for this, but Man has typically some degree of alpha-male instinct and often even of the hit-and-run kind. While a woman especially watches out against becoming a single parent, her instinct also favours finding a husband that will be dedicated solely to her, it's just a better guarantee than him being rich.

 

For humans, some claim it is a mark of civility, but in all actuality, it is a mark of barbarity. Regression rather than advancement.

Could you support the statement about barbarity and regression?

 

Monogamy has spawned jealousy, envy, guilt, remorse, regret, and every other emotion a human must endure as a result of the unreasonable restrictions placed on both man and woman.

It is really the other way around. Jealousy is highly instinctive, it isn't in the least caused by the social conventions.

 

But the social stigma attached to it is born of the reproductive restrictions placed on us socially, economically, etc, etc....

Yes, economically. Not all men can afford to maintain a harem. Those who can are just as jealous over each wife as other are over their one wife. Male jealousy is strong, especially for males that invest more into their offspring than just a mere swing at it.

[dduckwessel]

Monogamy is good for some things (when it works) like child rearing, however, divorce rates reveal that for the most part, it doesn't work for a large number of people.

 

Social structure of chimpanzees shows that polygamy is the norm. 'Females' independently raise, teach, and protect their young.

 

Humans are survival oriented, as a result of our primate beginnings - to disregard latent behaviour is to suppress a large part of what we are. Religion has forced us into modes of behaviour that deny this animal part.

 

Of course I know we've come a long ways from swinging in the trees and fishing for termites with a stick but a good deal of our behaviour is 'instinctual' and monogamy is not natural to our species.

[HydrogenBond]

I am not sure if we really know what is natural for the human species. We keep trying to watch animals for advice, on what is natural human behavior. We look everywhere except within, where natural instinct resides. Natural instinct is not outside. That is called learned behavior.

 

If you go to the zoo, apes will relieve themselves where they stand, since the urge comes from within. If we use the full ape standard, this should also be the natural way for humans. But in practical terms, it does work out well copying the apes in this way, since the needs of humans in culture is not optimized copying this ape behavior. If we did copy the apes, the social cost will be high. We could do it, but we would need zoo keepers to clean up after us. Humans needed to get away from the animal and ape standard, to minimize the social cost for the species.

 

Relative to polygamy, this may be the ape standard, but it is not very efficient in terms of the human species, unless one can personally provide for all their own resultant children. If you can't, society has to foot the bill and/or we need zoo keepers to clean up the diseases that will be generated, if everyone is doing everyone. The apes can do this without a mop, so it is natural for them. But once a mop has to come out, it is not natural, since nature does not need mops. Nature is optimized for a species with behavior within optimization parameters.

 

I would use the mop standard to help us determine natural human behavior, with the bigger the mop, the farther from the efficiency of natural human.

 

The ancients had already done it all, and many saw the cause and effect between behavior and the social costs of mops. They found ways to optimize just like in nature. Animal sacrifices were there to sacrifice the way of the animal, so human instincts could be differentiated within the context of natural efficiency, since the rest of nature works that way.

 

I see two motivations in nature, survival of the individual and survival of the species. When both are optimized, we get natural. Polygamy might well optimize the individual, which may be why many people see some truth within this orientation. But since it does not optimize the species, without mops, it is only part of the truth. The other side sees the cost of the mop, which is unnatural in nature.

[Joker37]

Monogamy has spawned jealousy, envy, guilt, remorse, regret, and every other emotion a human must endure as a result of the unreasonable restrictions placed on both man and woman.

 

This seems to be what most of the soap-opera TV shows in my country base their drama from. Jealousy, envy, guilt, remorse and regret seem to ruin a lot of relationships both on TV and in real life. I think I remember some sort of statistic last year somewhere saying that an estimated 20% of divorces in the US were caused by married couples using facebook and interacting with former friends. I guess a portion of these former friends would have been people of the opposite sex, but is this really such a big problem? Do you think generally people are almost always insecure about their partners when it comes to starting/developing sexual relationships? Are people usually worried that when they introduce their girlfriends/boyfriends to their other friends for the first time that their ordinary friends might steal their girlfriend/boyfriend away? I've never been in a sexual relationship with anyone nor have I had a partner but I am curious about how you adults think and what you guys do to counteract these negative feelings. Is society doing enough to prevent people from experiencing jealousy, envy, remorse, guilt and regret (which in my opinion are all one of humanity's most disgusting emotions) in the social setting?

[Boerseun]

This seems to be what most of the soap-opera TV shows in my country ...

...Is society doing enough to prevent people from experiencing jealousy, envy, remorse, guilt and regret (which in my opinion are all one of humanity's most disgusting emotions) in the social setting?

Hi there,

 

All the above emotions are exactly why Soap Operas are so popular. Jealousy, envy, remorse, guilt and regret are all the flipside of the happiness coin, and happiness would not be defined if not for the knowledge of all these alternatives to "happiness". It resonates beautifully with the human psyche, state and condition. You don't have to like it. But I can guarantee you one thing - if it was even possible for society to do anything about this, to "prevent" people from experiencing it, as you said, then nobody would be happy - simply because happiness would not be defined. You cannot be happy if you've never experienced the alternative. Life would just be one drab slab of grayness to slog through in the sweet anticipation of death. And this is not to mention that Soap Opera-producing companies will all go bankrupt.

 

After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Fro you to be happy, you must know what the alternative is like.

[HydrogenBond]

Monogamy spawns jealousy much more, when culture makes the very options, that will spawn the jealousy, more socially acceptable. This is true in all types of situations. For example, say you were a member of a political party. As long as you remain faithful to one group, there will be group acceptance. Say we made it fashionable for you to go to the other side, for one or two days a week, to learn the other POV. This would induce jealousy/anger within those who prefer that you not stray too far from the party line. One may get divorced from the group since you would bring discord to the group.

 

An interesting consideration has to do with law. One would expect, in a rational world, that the higher the level of victimization, the worse the crime. Say we compare someone picking your pocket to someone trying to mate with your mate. The second would be a far worse victimization for most , yet this is totally legal, while the lessor of the two is a crime. If someone stole your wallet, you would feel violated and angry, but unlike someone mating your mate, the negative emotion will not escalate all the way to murder or suicide, since the level of victimization is not as high.

 

These victimization proportions of law do not follow any rational laws of cause and effect, but rather follow a subjective standard of social acceptability. But subjectivity can not address the cause and effect. There is no police to help protect one from being victimized this way, so one is left on their own to do the policing. One may have to be police, judge and jury, which will strain any relationship. One is not expected to hunt down their own pick pocket and remain obsessed until there is justice. That is given to other to do.

 

On the other hand, there are plenty of free and single people in the world. Under these free and open relationship conditions, the rules of the game are different. Once someone becomes part of a "we", they have chosen to change the rules, such that more defensive reactions begin to occur, due to the victimization left for each to deal with or prevent by setting up security measures.

 

An interesting basis for law would be to use the monogamy standard of victimization as the zero line. Anything that makes one feel less violated and victimized will now be legal. We can go through the legal books and void most of the laws, except the most aggressive ones. Someone J-walking will bother most less than someone luring someone's mate to break their emotional contract. We can then apply the objective standard based on the level of a crime is proportional to the level of victimization.

[modest]

Monogamy spawns jealousy much more, when culture makes the very options, that will spawn the jealousy, more socially acceptable. This is true in all types of situations. For example, say you were a member of a political party. As long as you remain faithful to one group, there will be group acceptance. Say we made it fashionable for you to go to the other side, for one or two days a week, to learn the other POV. This would induce jealousy/anger within those who prefer that you not stray too far from the party line. One may get divorced from the group since you would bring discord to the group.

 

Uh-huh. By this rational marital jealousy is nearly nonexistent in a culture of Sharia law. :rolleyes:

 

~modest

 

When a young man complains that a young lady has no heart, it's pretty certain that she has his :phones:

[Joker37]

Monogamy spawns jealousy much more, when culture makes the very options, that will spawn the jealousy, more socially acceptable. This is true in all types of situations.

Uh-huh. By this rational marital jealousy is nearly nonexistent in a culture of Sharia law. :rolleyes:

 

I agree partly with this but not completely. In terms of the whole modesty dress codes placed upon Muslims in Sharia law, I see why you would think there'd be less jealousy as a result (i.e. because the covering up of men and women would lead to lower levels of sexual attractivity between the sexes giving them less to be jealous of in social gatherings).

 

But with the acceptance of polygamy, wouldn't the women be more susceptible to jealousy as well, as Muslim men are allowed multiple wives (but no more than four) but the women are not allowed multiple husbands?

[modest]

Monogamy spawns jealousy much more, when culture makes the very options, that will spawn the jealousy, more socially acceptable. This is true in all types of situations.

Uh-huh. By this rational marital jealousy is nearly nonexistent in a culture of Sharia law. :rolleyes:

I agree partly with this but not completely. In terms of the whole modesty dress codes placed upon Muslims in Sharia law, I see why you would think there'd be less jealousy as a result (i.e. because the covering up of men and women would lead to lower levels of sexual attractivity between the sexes giving them less to be jealous of in social gatherings).

 

My sarcasm was set a bit thick there.

 

No, I in fact completely disagree with HB. I don't believe jealousy is necessarily more pervasive where adultery is less socially acceptable. I just read HB's post again to make sure, and I'm positive that he is contrasting monogamy with adultery—not against polygamy. He is essentially saying that a society where sex outside of marriage is extremely offensive to everyone's beliefs will have less jealousy in matters of marital fidelity.

 

The way women are not allowed to show their face to non-relatives nor allowed to talk privately to non-relatives in a culture of Sharia law reflects how taboo adultery is, and, in my opinion, does nothing to alleviate feelings of jealousy. If anything, it is a reflection of that very feeling.

 

Men stoning their wives for being accused of adultery is the ultimate reflection of jealousy.

 

But with the acceptance of polygamy, wouldn't the women be more susceptible to jealousy as well, as Muslim men are allowed multiple wives (but no more than four) but the women are not allowed multiple husbands?

 

Yes, I agree. I've heard accounts of this many times. Where multiple wives are sharing the affection of a single mate (or vice-versa I should think) it could be common for 'sharing affection' to become 'competing for affection' which would naturally be indicative of jealousy.

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

Note though that Shariah law does not oblige women to cover their faces, this is a part of the tradition of only some areas. See this interesting article about hijab.

 

Where multiple wives are sharing the affection of a single mate (or vice-versa I should think) it could be common for 'sharing affection' to become 'competing for affection' which would naturally be indicative of jealousy.

A truly great portrayal of this is Zhang Yimou's Red Lanterns, an excelent film.

[modest]

Note though that Shariah law does not oblige women to cover their faces, this is a part of the tradition of only some areas. See this interesting article about hijab.

 

Good point Wahhabi or Salafi may have been better words than Sharia for me to use.

 

~modest