speaking of women....

[SHATOUSHKA]

this is a serious post. i wanna see what you
all think about this.

**************

richard dawkins has a marvelous theory about
genes and (in short) what promps us for
certain things.

drawing from that (so that this post isn't
terribly long)... a new epiphany may be verging.

why do we seek one partner?

washing away all that you know about the
social construct, what do you think the answer is?

to unjustly shorten dawkins idea, my notion
is that the reason we are urged to find one
partner is so that we are almost assured of:


in looking for a male: sperm to generate a new being

in looking for a female: a womb to generate
a new being

_________________

in looking at the animal kingdom, i seem to
always look at lions, since lions have such
a highly evolved (commonplace) social order.
(also comparative to wild canines)

a lion pride usually consists of one dominant
male and several females (with a dominant
female pride leader).

with having many females, the male lion (genes)
are assured of many chances for offspring.

similar to lions, we (our genes) are also
prompted to reproduce... but because of our
different social ladder, we are not always
assured of multiple females, and necessarily,
multiple chances for offspring.

therefore, we are urged to attain at least
one female (or male -- whatever your gender is)
and ... through marriage, assured of enough
possibility to reproduce.

do you find this to be the case?

going back to my first question, why do you
think we are urged to find one person?

[ek3]

Kill all women...and girls...before the become women...

[SHATOUSHKA]

you DO realize that if that happened,
there would be no more humans.


hmmm.... not a bad plan. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[ek3]

I'm alive...and I'll be dead by the time that happens...won't matter to me...

[SHATOUSHKA]

so do you wanna answer my Qs seriously, i.e. -- your opinion

or do you need a bit to think about it?

[ek3]

Time to think...

[zelazny]

well, maybe this one helps :
in nature you can put reproducing animals in roughly two groups: the type that will have many children, and the type that won't.

The type that has many children follows a strategy which goes somewhat like this : "if i create enough offspring, the chances of a few surviving are solid enough". On which it fertilizes about a thousand eggs, and is off.
That's the kind of strategy that's described by shatzy.
Humans however, are not able to just create 1000 children and hope that some will survive (seriously, if you'd say 3 ejaculations a day, all leading to a child, you'd be having sex a while year, that's not counting food-gathering,courting,getting 1000 different women to accept your sperm, and assuming they all ovulate at the right time)

If you have little offspring (the second group) you can improve the chances of your offspring, and thus genes surviving by guarding it, teaching it (remember how they say experience is just the sum of all errors you made? you can help your offspring evade those errors, thus improving their chances... now if they'd only listen) and generally fathering it.

there, my approach.

[SHATOUSHKA]

please.... tell me of another animal that falls
into the second group that DOESN'T allow incest,
polygamy, or -- in less words -- extra marital affairs.

[Alex]

It's the economy stupid. (I couldn't resist)

Marriage ensures a stronger economy and therefore a more stable chance at sharing goods with others. Unlike animals, we keep expanding our sharing beyond just our localized area, marriage is the glue to allow for this to happen.

[SHATOUSHKA]

that's ridiculous, alex...
polygamy would do the same thing... only better.