|
In terms of 'love', I don't understand where monogamy came from - which leads to me believing reproduction to be more efficient in the absence of moral attachment. 'Keeping a mate' means killing or otherwise dominating all of your competitors. If you are the last man standing, where else can the women go? Similarly, if a superior male comes along, why shouldn't all the women go to him?
Consider - if you ever 'loved' anyone that was biologically inferior, you would have defeated survival of the fittest. From a natural standpoint, there is no reason why any but the most superior specimens of humankind should ever be reproducing. There is no reason why any but the most superior should even survive, really. Those with terminal illnesses, disability, etc. should all perish rather quickly, if nature had its way.
To put it more succinctly, I don't understand why humans don't act more like pack animals in all aspects. Where did the spark that eventually became 'society' come from? Not ignoring nurture is fine - but it had to start somewhere.
__________________
Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.
|