A problem in the Military ?

Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..

Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
some sex from the other males..

Mike


" wrote:

"kelly" wrote:

Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping like
a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
Springer, you know what I'm talking about.


Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
certainly not monogamous.

Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.

So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
civilization?

A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...

Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook...

Gord (and those still following the thread):

Simply put, I think any conclusion based on the proposition that

"We have to accept behavior A because it is the result of 'human nature'"

is weak reasoning, because it presupposes our inability to exercise free
will.

That's the rational basis for rejecting the argument. The personal basis
for rejecting it comes from the experience of hearing the argument raised
over and over again, generally as an excuse to turn a blind eye to and/or
rationalize bad behavior.

Using "human nature" as an excuse to accept bad behavior, taken to it's
logical conclusion, results in the loss of something we have come to know as
"Civilization." This thing called "Civilization" is a burden not to be
discarded lightly.

With respect to sexual relations between military members, involving
infidelity or not, chain of command or not- there is plenty of ill and no
good to come from such behavior. So just because doing the right thing is
"hard," we should not demand it of ourselves and others?

And go ahead Gord- respond with both barrels. The tallest trees catch all
the wind, after all.

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Yes, Gord- but it is also "human nature" to believe in Demons and Spirits
and Magic and Dragons and Faeries and the like as well.

IMNSHO, a key part of being human (as opposed to a lower life form) has
to
do with moving beyond our "natural instincts" to something better . . .

Steve Swartz


I hesitate to reply to this because I'm afraid of losing my
control and telling you what I _really_ think.

However, I'll try. I could start by finding out why you
apparently think so little of 'natural instincts'.
--

-Gord.

Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."

Now there's a solution.

Steve Swartz

(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate the
study results myself . . .)


"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message
...
Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..

Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
some sex from the other males..

Mike


" wrote:

"kelly" wrote:

Women cheat too it's about boredom and trust issues keeps them leaping
like
a dog chasing it's tail. It's just plain stupid. You see them on Jerry
Springer, you know what I'm talking about.


Y'know, I sometimes wonder if we humans have got it right yet
after all of this time. We marry one partner and demand fidelity
for the rest of our lives when the natural human tendency is
certainly not monogamous.

Men constantly 'look the field over' and think 'woohoo, lookit
the (xxx) on that'. Women do exactly the same, perhaps it's not
advertised to be as 'strenuous' as with men but I believe that
it's actually every bit so, they just have the _reputation_ of
being less 'tempted', so it's a bit more undercover.

So then, is this 'one partner' for life the way we were meant to
be?...or is it just an affectation forced on us by religion and
civilization?

A husband will berate his gorgeous wife when she gets too cosy
with a male worker at the office party, I think mainly because
he's worried about what his friends will think, while he just
laughs about her avid perusal of the soaps. What up with that?...

Does anyone think that she has only pure clean thoughts about the
gorgeous hunk actors on there?... oooook...

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:55:05 -0500, "Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."

Now there's a solution.

Steve Swartz

(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate the
study results myself . . .)

"Social Sciences", now THAT is an oxymoron.

Al Minyard

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Gord (and those still following the thread):
Simply put, I think any conclusion based on the proposition that
"We have to accept behavior A because it is the result of 'human nature'"
is weak reasoning, because it presupposes our inability to exercise free
will.

Not at all...but neither should it be 'rejected' for that reason
either. I think we should look at it, remembering that it's human
nature, then select or reject it but keeping in mind that it *is*
human nature.

That's the rational basis for rejecting the argument. The personal basis
for rejecting it comes from the experience of hearing the argument raised
over and over again, generally as an excuse to turn a blind eye to and/or
rationalize bad behavior.

Using "human nature" as an excuse to accept bad behavior, taken to it's
logical conclusion, results in the loss of something we have come to know as
"Civilization." This thing called "Civilization" is a burden not to be
discarded lightly.

Of course not...most of the conditions that make up 'civilized
behavior' are indeed 'human nature'.

With respect to sexual relations between military members, involving
infidelity or not, chain of command or not- there is plenty of ill and no
good to come from such behavior. So just because doing the right thing is
"hard," we should not demand it of ourselves and others?


Depends on whether it really is 'the right thing' eh?


And go ahead Gord- respond with both barrels. The tallest trees catch all
the wind, after all.


Don't be silly Steve...I'd much rather debate it than fight,
wouldn't you?.

Steve Swartz



--

-Gord.

Abrigon Gusiq wrote:

Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..


I agree completely with them...how could it be otherwise?

Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
some sex from the other males..

Mike


The gene pool is weakened when sexual opportunities are narrowed
in any animal, and it's strengthened with a widening of those
opportunities. This is a well known fact and cannot be argued by
anyone.

This, of course, makes monogamy a damaging factor for the human
race.
--

-Gord.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."

Now there's a solution.

We could do worse...matter of fact we 'are' doing worse!...


Steve Swartz

(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate the
study results myself . . .)


"Wish it to be true"?...you 'know' it to be true Steve...
--

-Gord.

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


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:

Some recent work in sociology and like sciences, that humans are
actually damaging their gene pool by the idea of monogamy, that humans
for the most part are not meant to be monogamous..


I agree completely with them...how could it be otherwise?

Chimps and like, the Alpha male, lords over things, but often he is so
stressed he can not perform all the time, so the ladies go out and get
some sex from the other males..

Mike


The gene pool is weakened when sexual opportunities are narrowed
in any animal, and it's strengthened with a widening of those
opportunities. This is a well known fact and cannot be argued by
anyone.

This, of course, makes monogamy a damaging factor for the human
race.
--

-Gord.

"You know it to be true" does not, in my discipline, constitute "evidence"
or even a "cite."

When you analyze the data (including the experimental design, which
determines how the data are collected) and are honest about the inferences
that follow from the analysis, many times you see results quite different
from what the authors suggest.

Examples abound. You must be jsut as critical in your reading of peer
reviewed work as you are in your reading of Time, Newsweek, etc.

Studies of the inheritability of traits and eugenics have been notoriously
flawed in hte past; including the recent past.

(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


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."

Now there's a solution.

We could do worse...matter of fact we 'are' doing worse!...


Steve Swartz

(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate
the
study results myself . . .)


"Wish it to be true"?...you 'know' it to be true Steve...
--

-Gord.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

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?





Regrettably, even the best mids are willing to be clouded by superstition
and faith.

Steve Swartz



--

-Gord.