Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
If that's the case, then love is the ultimate solution for avoiding a situation where unregulated polygamy would have a negative affect on the population. To paraphrase a section of The Selfish Gene by Dawkins: If you've got a population entirely composed of polygamists, such that each individual will mate and move on leaving one parent to raise the offspring by itself, the offspring has less of a chance of surviving to breed than it would if both parents had remained to raise it. In such a scenario, any individual which somehow becomes inclined to stay with its mate and raise its children cooperatively will increase the likelihood that its offspring will survive. Of these surviving offspring, half will contain the genes of the monogamist, and so, given a few generations, that gene will spread thought the gene pool.
|
If you follow this line of thought, there are other conclusions that could be reached. Another is that the some men are monogamous, some aren't, and most women aren't. A monogamous relationship still reaps the reward of a two parent advantage, even if the child doesn't belong to one of the parents. So women will want to form relationships with 'Jim Bob monogomy' over there even though he's fat slow and cross eyed, but continue to have sex during their most fertile times with 'Joe studly genes' on this side when nobody is looking. So actually what you get is a population where some members are monogamous and some are not. This way everyone has their genes maintained and the population benefits the most from having the 'most fit' being exempt from the monogamy rule. As a supportive aside; there has been at least one study that found women are most likely to cheat around the time they're ovulating.
On a philosphical note: Love is simply the decision to not give up. It's about finding a person you think is worth it and making the choice to give them and your relationship with them your all. Love is active, it is something you do. Love is not passive; not something you fall into; not something you can't help. I never understood this view of Love just happens to people, If you aren't in control of it, it can't have any meaning or at least as much meaning as if you are in control of it. I want to be with the person who knows what they are doing and loves me because they want to, not because they are unable to not love me.
In a naive sense, politicophile is right. It leaves you with the absence of the desire for something better, but it's deeper than that. Your desire leaves because you believe you have found the fit, the person you can make it work with, so you don't need to look for anything better anymore.