Why we f*ck
raptitude.com
raptitude.com
Many believe that these animals have what we call culture. Different groups eat different things, have different language of whistles, learn different hunting techniques and behave differently, yet have a fairly low branch factor in their genetic lineage.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Understanding-O...
Quoting the first paragraph:
Orcas have evolved complex culture: a suite of behaviors
animals learn from one another. They communicate with
distinctive calls and whistles. They can live 60 years or
more, and they stay in tightknit matrilineal groups led
by older females that model specific behaviors to younger
animals. Scientists have found increasing evidence that
culture shapes what and how orcas eat, what they do for
fun, even their choice of mates. Culture, says Hal
Whitehead of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, “may be very important to them.”
It would be interesting to watch what happens if and when they discover an analogue of agriculture.
The author makes enormous logical leaps with nothing but conjecture (corin_ pointed this out very well in another comment), practically inventing narratives for huge amounts of history with little to no actual evidence to support his suppositions (the concept of property didn't exist until agriculture; primageniture and inheritance came about because they were "intuitive", despite the fact that paternity wasn't normally known; etc.).
EDIT: Just as a disclaimer, I ascribe to a Christian viewpoint on history (yes, I'm a young-earth creationist; yes, I've looked extensively at the evidence; no, I don't really want to derail the discussion with an argument about it) and morality, which includes sexual and marital monogamy, so I disagree with pretty much everything in the article. My point here isn't trying to convince anyone of that - I don't think the article stands even on its own premises, and is a terrible mess of conjecture and inconsistency. That's the only point I'm making.
It works if you expand the concept of "offspring" to mean basically "the person(s) that you want to be your inheritors". This is what the Romans did, at least -- it was common for an adopted son to become the principal inheritor.
It does make sense that if you have a substantial fortune and influence and you're not really sure about who your genetic children are, then you'd want to pick your heir rather than simply having your children split it up evenly after you're gone. Romans even had the concept of posthumous adoption: Emperor Augustus became Julius Caesar's adopted son only after the latter's famous assassination. In turn Augustus passed his wealth and power on to an adopted son, Tiberius.
So there is no reason to assume that traditional societies just didn't care and loved all children equally. It's just that they might not have another choice. And also this is probably why virginity is so important in many cultures, because it promises to guarantee the man to become the real father.
I just read Jared Diamond's latest book and I think he wrote that most wars (in New Guinea) between tribes are about women or pigs - so they do care about possessions (not implying women should be treated as possessions, just making a counterpoint to the article). There also seems to be the concept of marriage in many traditional societies, also kids being promised for marriage for later when they are old enough, and stuff like that.
What is probably true is that we are not build for monogamy: both sexes would prefer to "not put all their eggs into one basket" (women want to have kids from multiple fathers, men want to have kids from multiple mothers). On the other hand Nassim Taleb mentioned in "Black Swan" that by assigning one man to one woman and vice versa, the church might have done a lot for peace - before that system, there would have been more men without any mates at all, resulting in jealousy and fighting.
In a tribe there's very a much a shared culture with shared culture and shared social bonds, while in the modern world there's an endless fractal of subcultures and individualism. And the more educated you are, the smaller the people here share enough of a permutation of culture to feel similar is.
I think this somewhat explains why divorce rates are higher for the less educated - having more in common it's easier for there to be widespread understanding and shared culture, which in turn sets a lower bar (or creates a higher probability) that people will be able to functionally bond with each other.
Conversely, going to college narrows the pool of people who have enough shared tribal characteristics to be a part of the comfort zone, and it increases even further when people express their tendencies to want relationships with people who share interests/traits/experiences/educational choices.
In a tribe every shared the same experiences. Likewise, nearly everyone shares similar K-12 experiences. So within these cohorts there would naturally be a high replacability, which should mean monogamy ought to become less valued.
On the other hand, people who go to college and matriculate through to different careers are basically funneling themselves into situations where there are fewer people with enough shared experiences to be a part of the tribe, making the value of an individual relationship increase.
TLDR: The less mainstream someone is, the more they should have an incentive to value an individual relationship. Thus the more uniform and cohesive the social group, the less value is likely placed on an individual relationship. Hence we can blame not just property rights, but the fact that civilization and agriculture destroy shared experience compared to hunter/gatherer tribes. This can also explain lower divorce rates among the more educated or uniquely experienced as compared to typical high school graduates.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/10/15/the-states-of-marriage...
We try to minimize baby-making but we’re still highly interested in sex, and so for humans sex obviously serves another extremely compelling purpose.
That purpose is to bring us closer, to cement social bonds.
Without arguing which is the correct reason, surely an alternate explanation could be "That purpose is to cause our bodies pleasure".
(Also: the fact that pleasure is there doesn't automatically mean it evolved for genetic benefits. Why do people get pleasure out of class A drugs?)
Unless you're actually suggesting that the sexual pleasure response is itself an incidental consequence of something else that just hasn't been optimised out yet?
No, I'm just suggesting that it's possible to do activities (sex for recreational purposes far above what's needed for reproduction, rock climbing) that have a pleasure reward without a specific evolutionary reason for the activity, if it hits the pleasure circuits anyway.
It may be there are a variety of reasons (bonding etc) or it may be that humans have just found a way to hit their own pleasure button without it being so detrimental to species propagation that either the behaviour or the reward evolves out.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/lost-tribe-happy-i...
[[None of the nomads regrets coming in from the desert.
"I like this life," Yardi said. "I much prefer it to the old ways."
Warlinipirri said: "I wouldn't go back."
Melbourne art dealer Kit Ballan, who was in the Alice buying paintings when I met Warlinipirri, said: "We see the nomadic life in the desert as utopian.
"But, in reality, it would have been hard beyond our imagining.
"Every day would have been dominated by the search for food and water."]]
It doesn't look like a nomadic people have that much recreational time - they are constantly searching for food, water.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JzeKMKe...