Let's review the bidding:
1) As we stray from the main point, remember that we should at some point
get back to it: to whit, "The use of 'It's Human Nature' to excuse damaging
behaviors without regard to the net effects of those behaviors" which seemed
to set you off so much in the first place. We were, course, discussing it
in the context of military members serving in some active capacity.
2) This current discursion into the issue of sexuality with respect to
"Monogamy vs. Polygamy" has two separable components: Social Behavior (with
effects, both "bad" and "good") and Breeding Behavior (with effects both
"bad" and "good").
3) As to the Social Behavior component of the subset of the discussion,
that appears to be currently tabled. So we are now focusing only on the
Breeding Behavior sub-component of the "Mono/Poly" subcomponent of the
Sexuality subcomponent of the Military sub-component of the Use of Human
Nature to Excuse Behavior issue.
4) To make your side of the argument, you have expanded the discussion to
include "The good of the species with respect to the Gene Pool"
O.K., fine- let's nail that one down a little better at this point.
Remembering, of course, that the larger issues (which started the
discussion) should eventually come into play; ie, How Does This Involve the
Military?
So I reiterate (from a quite recent previous post, which you answered as
shown below):
************************************************** **************************
**
Swartz stated:
You expose some interesting assumptions on your part. Don't ignore that
"monogamy" is hardly identical to "narrowed sexual opportunities;" also
recognize that sexual behavior and breeding outcomes are also very different
things.
1. The initial opportunity sets (mono vs. poly) are identical, but once the
monogamous choice is made, the long term set is narrowed to 1 in the
monogamous case, and remains relatively unrestricted in the polygamous case.
The opportunities for variation are not "1 to 1" vs. "1 to many" as even
monogamous members follow selection and opportunity rule sets.
2. The breeding patterns and sexual patterns mon vs. poly are also not
ceteris paribus. Multiple sexual partners does not equate to multiple
variation in offspring- fertility rates between polygamous (sexual)
behaviors and monogamous (sexual) behaviors are not equal at all.
So the "benefit" [sic] of polygamous sexual behavior is quitre reduced
(particulalry in the human species) fronm the advantages we see among lower
life forms.
This entirely ignores the costs of polygamous sexual behavior, and
polygamous breeding outcomes, that are evident as well.
While I agree that many of my colleagues in the scientific community would
*wish* for certain conclusions to be true (global warming, benefits of
polygamy, equity of socialism, etc.), selective anlysis of certain data
(ignoring other evidence) does not make it so.
Regrettably, even the best mids are willing to be clouded by superstition
and faith.
Steve Swartz
************************************************** **************************
Answered by:
************************************************** *************************
Beeman stated (Swartz in )
So the "benefit" [sic] of polygamous sexual behavior is quitre reduced
(particulalry in the human species) fronm the advantages we see among lower
life forms.
Well Steve, you're arguing about the short term
advantages/disadvantages of 'switching' to poly from mono after
centuries of basically mono. Of course the true advantages won't
be felt immediately, but if humans had been taught for all of
that time that mono was 'bad' and poly was good then the full
advantages of the 'variety' to our gene pool would have been
felt.
This entirely ignores the costs of polygamous sexual behavior, and
polygamous breeding outcomes, that are evident as well.
What costs?
While I agree that many of my colleagues in the scientific community would
*wish* for certain conclusions to be true (global warming, benefits of
polygamy, equity of socialism, etc.), selective anlysis of certain data
(ignoring other evidence) does not make it so.
Ok...I don't know much about any of them really but ISTM that in
one sense at least there's no doubt of the benefit of polygamy
over monogamy.
Mind you, the total overall gain may favour monogamy but who
could argue that 'value to the gene pool' certainly lies with
variety?
************************************************** *************************
Swartz now rebuts:
The points you raise seem to be restated and quite answerable seri atem (the
points I make that you ignored stand as unchallenged):
1. We would be better off today in some way, unanswerable because we didn't
behave differently in the past.
Alone, this argument is abviously tautological and should be discarded out
of hand. However, I will address the implied point. We have examples today
of societies, cultures, and sub-cultures that practice(d) forms of the
polygamy you seem to recommend. How do those examples instruct us? The
results are out there for inspection. The "experiments" have already been
conducted.
2. Since we haven't really practiced polygamy (see above), there is no
evidence of the "negative consequences" that Swartz suggests.
We have experimented with polygamy in several settings (note re urban North
American family structure, 1970-present) in an environment where the
polygamous and monogamous family structures have coexisted int he same
environment. A "somewhat" direct comparison is available (although cultural
confounds abound, as in any examination of empirical data). Results suggest
several negative social and medical (though not specifically genetic)
undesirable outcomes. That's just one example. Several exist.
3. In my mond no doubt exists that there are undeniable genetic addvantages
to polygamy.
O.K., then why didn't you address the strictly geneitic side of my argument-
the caluclation of opportunity and variety? I wait with baited breath. We
can do the math- you'll find that the increase in variation that results
from the increased opportunity that polygamy provides is somewhat trivial.
You could, of course, increase the amount of variation that results by
selective breeding- do you really ant to go there? Others have- we have
experiment with those issues as well; and the results weren't that pretty.
Increased variation is not necessarily a good thing in gene pools.
We have the related argument that the gene pool has become increasingly
polluted by our failure to remove unwanted patterns fromt he gene pool (as a
negative side effect of better medicine). Care to make a comparison between
policies of, say, forced genetic mixing by state decree vs. the euthanizing
of teh handicapped?
Many unpleasant places to go withjt eh genetic argument. In any case, I
don't believe it will get you anywhere with respect to the issue of "Using
'Human Nature' to Excuse Behavior."
Steve Swartz
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:
(Interesting suggestion, Gord, that society or even biology would
"benefit"
from less monogamy! Perhaps a return to our idyllic Neolithic past? No?
How about the peaceful Nirvana of the North American continent aboriginal
societies of the 1600s?)
Steve Swartz
C'mon now Steve...where did I say that anything other than 'The
Gene Pool' would benefit?. I don't know if mankind in general
would benefit but certainly the gene pool would and I would
assume that with better genes we'd be better off overall...
wouldn't we?
--
-Gord.
|