Is monogamy being bred out of us via natural selection?
In the ancient world, Monogamy made sense biologically. The men would spend their day collecting scarce food/resources for their offspring and caregivers (women). Human beings who did not follow this trend would have their offspring starve and die in the harsh ancient world.
However, in today's world, single mothers won't starve and die like they did in the past. When was the last time a person STARVED in the western world? Exactly. There is no selective pressure AT ALL any more for people to stay monogamous. "It leads to bad living conditions!!" you might say, but you'd be wrong. Poor trash who had shitty conditions in childhood have WAY more babies by the age of 20 than picky university-educated people, many of whom don't even have kids ever.
What does the future look like? I think 10 generations down the road, monogamy will be gone completely. You'll dump some cum into a girl, and she'll be happy to raise a child on her own. I don't think this is bad.
>What does the future look like? I think 10 generations down the road, monogamy will be gone completely. You'll dump some cum into a girl, and she'll be happy to raise a child on her own. I don't think this is bad.
To add to this, I think "intelligence" is also a disappearing trait. Regardless of how stupid you are in today's world (unless you literally have downe-syndrome) food and shelter are pretty much provided to you. Farming technology has been sufficiently developed. You literally just have to follow the instructions of our intelligent ancestors and you have more than enough food. Natural selection dictates that unnecessary traits will disappear over time (sometimes a very long time, but it always happens).
The people of the future will be much more stupid.
Christian Mitchell
This will eventually lead to a white educated elite class. This ruling class will control all of the wealth and divide small amounts to the majority (which was once groups of minorities). What a shame.
Leo Allen
> People will become stupider > What is genetic engineering
Asher Butler
if we get to that point.
if people get stupid faster than the current scientists can figure this out, we're pooched
Joshua Peterson
That's literally impossible, we'd have to drop in IQ by over a standard deviation in one generation for that to happen, the tech for it is already near the point of reaching practical deployment.
Gavin Barnes
Scociety as a whole has already regressed in intelligence by a noticeable amount.
As for single mothers. They still live off the baby's daddy by taking most of his paycheck.
Camden Flores
The most success we've had with gene modification is in lab conditions with mice, crickets, and bacteria colonies. Even then, it's just small tweaks to physical characteristics or producing more of a certain hormone. Nothing like "increasing human intelligent considerably"
Just do some math here. Of my stupid-as-fuck highschool peers, about 50% of them have had kids already at the age of 23. Some of them have 2 kids. Of my university peers, not a single one of them have had children.
It's not that 'intelligence' is a negative trait, it's just an unnecessary trait. And the laws of natural selection state that unnecessary traits always disappear over time. In fact, it might even hinder your ability to find a mate
Levi Murphy
it's not that we'll be "pooched", but rather technological progress would slow and stop, and we would just be a bunch of mindless "social" animals for hundreds of thousands of years, not exploring other planets or anything like that
Lucas Hill
> the laws of natural selection state that unnecessary traits always disappear over time That's not true at all, things don't disappear unless there's negative selective pressure against them. There's not really any reason for humans to have body hair at this point or tailbones but there's no selection against them so we still have them.
Jayden Gutierrez
Literally met a teen prostitute who looked just like this.
Jordan Clark
>I think monogamy is being bred out of us via natural selection
>monogamy was born due to natural selection, and is a biologically derived instinct in humans
Stop leaf posting
Parker Lee
> Monogamy is a biologically derived instinct lol no, humans are polygamous by nature, it's just the constraints of agricultural society led to monogamy being selected for as the optimal arrangement of society at the time and the need for the creation of moral codes/religions which solidified it and kept it in place followed.
John Jenkins
No, this is a common misconception. Useless traits always disappear as well, but take A LOT LONGER than negative traits.
Regarding body hair, it is definitely a disappearing trait. Look at black people, they grow zero facial hair, and the hair on their heads is thin and grows very slowly.
Women are also not technically unattracted to a man with a bad hairline (see: jude law, etc). Hair is on its way out.
Grayson Allen
burger, stop and listen.
>monogamy was a useful trait from 2,000,000 BC to 1900 AD. >modern world is wildly different from ancient world >traits will naturally disappear with these wild changes
James Hernandez
>you still have to subsidize that kid you dumb fucking leaf.
Jaxon Gutierrez
You're wrong though, a lot of black men do grow facial hair, and their hair only looks like it grows slowly because of its coil structure. > What are vestigial traits It isn't a common misconception, things don't go away unless they're selected against. If the environment somehow changes to make intelligence selected against then it will decrease among the general populace, but if the environment doesn't change to that then there's no reason for that to happen.
Jacob Foster
Sexbots will change this though. Think westworld. No more illegitimate children. Men wouldn't have children they don't want by having sex with a meatbag when they could bang a hotter robot and not be on the hook for child support for 18 years. Basically when masturbation becomes better than sex men will only have children if they really want them.
Ryder Cruz
I JUST WANT A GF
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Wyatt White
There's nothing natural about women marrying the State to get resources.
Juan Hill
Except it's the most efficient and rational thing to do in this environment in terms of resources. Nothing's stopping you you autist.
Luke Reed
Man, she looked damn good in that sketch. Fuck.
Cameron Hernandez
>In the ancient world, Monogamy made sense biologically.
Being this blue pilled.
Just.
Josiah Gonzalez
>unless there's negative selective pressure against them It certainly looks that way
Wyatt Fisher
Why everywhere white single moms white half black half white kids??
Joshua Hall
Zo is natuur
Jose Sanchez
Useless traits disappear because there actually IS negative selective pressure against them. You still have to expend energy to grow hair. Hair follicle is a vulnerability, and it can get infected and shit. And in case of body hair you could say there's a negative sexual selection going on against that.
Generally there's no such thing as free trait, so there's small negative pressure against any trait by default, at least until all food and sex become completely free.
You're right about intelligence, though - the reproductive advantages vastly outweigh the upkeep cost.
Luke Hernandez
> You still have to expend energy to grow hair. Hair follicle is a vulnerability, and it can get infected and shit In an environment in which food energy is relatively plentiful and in somewhat abundance the extra energy required becomes meaningless though, this is why many vestigial traits remain, because the environment provides enough that they aren't particularly selected against. In the case of hair follicles and infection, etc. the risk of an infection so deadly/debilitating that it either kills you or hampers you infertile is so low as to be completely non-harmful. Not to mention there are things beyond energy considerations and the like like sexual selection which determine our inheritance patterns, which is probably the reason blonde hair exists.
Blake Richardson
Monogamy always was completely unnatural. Just like entire human civilization. Monogamy just happens to be most effective social order to build said civilization. It provides a way to harness potential of every man in population by giving them best reason to work hardest - to provide for their offspring ant to build something that will outlive them and will be inherited. Aryan peoples across the world standing at the beginning of civilization were monogamous. Christian civilization as well. Polygamous tribes never advanced past primitive tribalism until they adopted high culture of monogamous ones. And of course western world that discarded monogamy weakening and rotting despite all its wealth and power.
James Martin
I've got news for you, it's always been this way or a lot worse. For every one semi-intelligent craftsman or thinker there were hundreds of illiterate peasants that worked the fields and/or starved. In fact, if anything selective pressure is making the world smarter, not more stupid. In most of the western world being actually illiterate will prevent you from interacting with people, much less attracting a mate. We as a species are approaching a baseline of "at least smart enough to be taught how to read".
Nathaniel Harris
>Look at black people, they grow zero facial hair, and the hair on their heads is thin and grows very slowly.
Wow, you really have no fucking idea about this subject do you?
t. Black guy
Nicholas Roberts
Because single mothers cannot raise a child properly, a father figure is needed.
Alexander King
99% of animals exhibit single-mother behavior. Monogamy is an extreme oddity, and I think we're just returning to the natural state
Adam Roberts
>welfare from the state >natural
Julian Bennett
...
Blake James
Standard retarded leaf reasoning, sage
Brandon Jones
Intelligence will only increase when there is pressure to do so. Otherwise, a species will go to a state of "genetic equilibrium". Look at sharks. They have been literally unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, because their living strategy is "effective enough".
Poor, stupid people in today's world are more than enough to subsist
Samuel Hill
> 99% of animals exhibit single-mother behavior First of all terrible example considering that includes shit like insects which we have virtually in common with. Secondly if you actually want to focus on mammals, especially the more intelligent and group-oriented ones similar to humans, and their child-rearing techniques, then that's extremely untrue, they raise children collectively within a large tribe with multiple males and females around and the biological father and mother give preferential access and treatment to their children.
Jaxson Roberts
because animals are as complex as humans in terms of psychology
Eli Bennett
animals that maintain families are not somehow unnatural for being a minority, and the ones that do tend to engage in far more sophisticated behavior and have intelligence to suit that pump and dump behavior is for creatures who don't care about their offspring's development and can make one hundred more until it turns out right, and even if you argue that basic needs are met by the state today, parents still have a major role in teaching their children until the commies finally rip that out of their hands too
Brody Lee
> Look at sharks. They have been literally unchanged for hundreds of millions of years This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. All species are constantly changing, even if not due to their environment then due to random genetic mutation. Sharks now are completely different from what they would have been hundreds of millions of years ago (there weren't even things we could call sharks back then), as is their environment which they evolved along with.
Owen Ward
That's fucking stupid because current trends won't go on until then.
Aaron Scott
he probably thinks evolution happens like in pokemon
Henry Gutierrez
This is why society nowadays is completely fucked up. We use the sistem of monogamy to ensure our descendency, we get used to educate, provide food, shelter and all of that with the stability of a traditional family. What preaches poligamy is to fuck as much as you can and ensure the descendency by just let your seed spreads in earth neglecting the parental take care of the old days.
Liam Thompson
that's assuming that "teaching" is strictly valuable in our insanely advanced world. The poor trash down the street from me who works at Wendy's warming up burgers and has 2 kids, whereas many university educated people of the same age won't have children for another decade or not at all.
Dominic King
taken directly from wikipedia: >the earliest known fossils of the great white shark are about 16 million years old
literally unchanged for 10s of millions of years
Carson Brown
No it's not because of that. The reason useless traits are lost is because of random mutation. Basically dysfunctional random DNA has more entropy than a well selected set of genes. Entropy tends to increase over time if nobody does anything about it. This is how primates lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C. Vestigial structures are still there either because they are implicated in the code that makes more important stuff and thus can't be eliminated with a series of simple changes without intermediate steps becoming dysfunctional; or they're still there because they actually serve some function. Or most likely a combination of these two things: dna logic structure makes them hard to lose, thus some function is found for them. Evolution kinda sucks desu.
Josiah Moore
how is this an argument?
Carson Gomez
There is no pressure selecting for intelligence, since we can just subsist on technology of the past. Useless traits disappear over time, a principle of evolution
Adrian Morgan
>Implying genotype change iquals phenotype change
Austin Richardson
This is still a fundamental understanding. First of all, fossil reconstructions are generally unreliable to a large degree. Secondly, just because the basic skeletal structure remains relatively unchanged does not mean that the organism as a whole is not changing at the same time. Just think about humans, if a skeleton of us were found, considering decay over time, we would lose important data about bone density, teeth structure, muscle mass and composition, the organs, and virtually all other important information about us. The fossil reconstructions are useful for general timelines but organisms still change directly over time. Also 16 million years is nowhere close to hundreds of millions of years.
Isaac Thomas
Because the state subsidizes the survival of trash who don't raise their kids well and those who would are subjected to an onslaught of propaganda to discourage them from bothering. Doesn't help that they're smart enough to see their own children would be disadvantaged in such an environment.
In that sense, you're right, monogamous families may well be pressured out of the mainstream. But the process is anything but natural and would quickly fall off if modern social engineering ceased immediately.
Liam Cruz
Kill yourself effective immediately.
Ryan King
I can say with a high probability that the physically-unchanged great white shark from 16 million years probably hasn't undergone much of any intelligence change. My point is that if an organism has a strategy that "works", it will not change.
Being poor and stupid in today's world, with all this technology we've hoarded, "works". There is no more pressure to be "inventive", since it doesn't particularly benefit us beyond food+breeding, which is all that is important in terms of natural selection
Evan Young
I don't think that's a long term trend. Either the west wakes up and gases some jews, or we disappear. Either way, the majority of the world will continue to engage in monogamy. Just think of the chinks, they're even more k selected than us and there's billions of them. If the west fails, asians can take over. They aren't as good as us but they're ok.
David Thompson
>it's a Sup Forums thinks everyone was monogamous in the past episode Nah. Women cheating aside for a moment, it was common throughout the ancient world for men to have multiple wives or at least fuck prostitutes/mistresses on the side.
Julian Morris
Best post
Noah Morgan
>not unattracted to a man with a bad hairline (see: jude law, etc) >Jude law Are fucjing serious, nigger? Comparing one of the most beautiful men, an famous/rich at that in the world to your everyday pleb? >Hehe see Jude law can get away with it so can yiu Just drink bleach faggot Newsflash baldlets: It always makes you uglier that you were with a full set of hair
Gavin Mitchell
I agree.
Lincoln Hughes
When there's no negative pressure at all, a random loss like this could only establish itself in the population if the population is small and/or goes through some kind of near-extinction experience. Genetic drift I think it's called. In a numerous, well-established population like the one we're a part of, it would take forever for these mutations to accumulate. Or so I think.
I agree about vestigial structures being secretly useful and/or required for other stuff to work, but I can't for the life of mine argue for the tailbone.
Ian Carter
>tailbone we have it for the same reason whales have tiny legs embedded in their bodies. Useless traits disappear over time, but very.... very... slowly
Caleb Long
In the very ancient world tribespeople would mate in huge orgies and the resulting offspring would be taken care of equally as they were considered to be the next generation, nothing more nothing less.
Jeremiah Jackson
If we got rid of all state assistance (socialism) most problems would be fixed in this country. The reason why our country rose to power and became the greatest country in the world from scratch is because our country was a true free market. We didn't coddle or restrict anyone and only the best of the best made it.
Hudson Foster
Is it half caste kid?
James Edwards
That sounds like something a jew made up.
Henry Jenkins
I remember reading that those tiny legs are actually useful when a whale is giving birth or something along those lines.
Owen Gray
Yes goy, monogamy is being bred out of us via (((natural))) selection.
Levi Watson
That isn't true, the whole reasons breasts exist is becomes humans started pair bonding a while back and mating in the front to look at each other to facilitate greater interpersonal cooperation and bonding, so breasts developed in order to mimic butts since butts arouse creatures which mate from behind, which most primates do and which humans used to do. There were orgies and group sex, sure, but humans primarily have sex with only one partner at a time and evolved to do so. Looks like it.
Easton Moore
>breasts developed to mimic butts Where did you read that?
Liam Bennett
this sounds like a "breaking discovery" by some biology undergrad looking for free funding. I don't believe it
Yeah Sex at Dawn is the best example for it. The guy that wrote that article wrote that book. Just that and any other related books provide an interesting perspective of it.
Alexander Kelly
how come? racemixer or a cuck
Brandon Hill
I'm apt to believe that the whole racial nationalism will become obsolete when race becomes a choice. However, racial nationalism with merge with civic nationalism such that everyone in a specific country will assimilate not just the host culture, but also host genetics.
Noah Campbell
>tfw recedeing hairline But I'm still doing very good, because I'm funny, cute and I basically had to work out like a motherfucker since I have no facial hair. Making a woman laugh is the most important factor.
Ryder Phillips
But thats not ture without the massive modern state run by men and supplied by men, women could not do what they do.
Nathan Price
>raise a child on her own. Implying these bitches don't sink their fangs in to you for child support >I don't think this is bad 46% of state prisoners are the product of single parent homes.
NEXT
Gabriel Lewis
This man gets it.
Nicholas Gomez
>What does the future look like? I think 10 generations down the road, monogamy will be gone completely. You'll dump some cum into a girl, and she'll be happy to raise a child on her own. I don't think this is bad. Fucking leaf. People like you are the bane of this world and I hope one day every last one of your foul ilk hangs from a tree.
>In the ancient world, Monogamy made sense biologically. No it didn't. Approximately 80% of the women in our genetic history reproduced, and only about 40% of the men, which means that the same women were having babies to different men.
Monogamy has only been a thing since religion started to spread, that's the last few thousand years.
>There is no selective pressure AT ALL Well, that's not entirely true. Welfare is given by the state and can only be given as long as the state stays one cohesive unit and can collect the taxes necessary to hand out the money. That requires a functioning society (low crime, high employment, high trust etc)
>What does the future look like? Idiocracy. Seriously watch that movie if you've not seen it already.
>You'll dump some cum into a girl, and she'll be happy to raise a child on her own. I don't think this is bad. Oh boy are you naive. Single parenthood is the best predictor for disfunction in adults, it's a better predictor than both class and race put together. That is to say a child to a single white parent born in the middle class is much more likely to show degeneracy in later life than a poor black child who is born into a 2 parent family.
It's especially bad with single mothers, single fathers do a little better.
Ethan Evans
>Idiocracy Out of all the horrible futures I can think of, this is the one that frightens me more than anything else.
Jacob Price
Monogamy made the Western civilization possible. I don't understand this talk about how prehistoric tribes weren't monogamous. I mean, we obviously evolved towards monogamy. Getting rid of monogamy would be a civilizational regression.
Kayden Fisher
If you are interested in seeing all of OPs shitty arguments blown the fuck out look no further.
Eli Stewart
>which means the same women were having babies to different men No it doesn't? Can you explain this? If 8 out of ten women and 4 out of ten men in a given room reproduced, that means the same men were having babies with different women. It doesn't say anything about whether the women were also polygamous, which they may or may not have been.
Nathaniel Bell
you homo thugs never learn, do you?
Hunter Rodriguez
>No it doesn't? Can you explain this? Sure, it's just maths. It's not possible to achieve 40/80 split without men impregnating multiple women.
>Out of all the horrible futures I can think of, this is the one that frightens me more than anything else. Horrifying and amusing at the same time. I've learned to let go of the future, especially of the far future. That's not something I'll have to worry about, so if everything goes to shit then so be it, the unfit are meant to die out that's the whole point of life.
I forgot to come full circle on this post. I meant to finish by pointing out how a society that basically gives birth to many degenerate people will eventually be unable to sustain a welfare state that produces them. So long term it's a sort of self correcting problem, but it may mean the growth and then eventual death of the state.
Justin Robinson
this is truth
Evan Perez
You are saying all this non sense as if single women support themselves. They either suck men dry for child support or go on welfare that is composed of mens tax dollars. Until society comes to a point where women become completely self sufficient men aren't going to be down for this shit. You're also obviously not aware of the fact that coming from a single parent home is a huge predictor of disfunction in both youth and adulthood. Sorry faggot.
Colton Hernandez
Monogamy had always been hard to come by. But there's a lot less shame with it now so some actually take pride in their degenerate behavior.
Jaxson Ortiz
>I don't think this is bad
Leaf, I know you leafpost but single mothers brains go haywire. I know from experience.
All A FUCKING is just one canadian jew most likely, now could you shut your chosen mouth?
Benjamin Gonzalez
>The people of the future will be much more stupid. It already is. I'm a tutor and all my kids look up their problems on Google. It sickens me.
Brandon White
Natural selection does not exist in a society with socialism.
Holly fuck you people are retards.
Liam Anderson
Natural selection always exists, it just changes based upon the environment.
Joshua Gray
What's wrong with looking shit up on Google? Throughout history the advent of technology brought to masses that which was before only available to the gifted few. Calculators, photography, GPS - everything is aimed at making it easier to be retarded. If anything, this is another triumph of human civilization.
Michael Bell
>Humans polygamous before agriculture Please provide evidence. Why would a man waste resources on kids he didn't even know were his? Why is it common in almost all human cultures to proclaim "the baby looks like its father" whenever a woman has given birth? Why do modern hunter gatherers tend to have marriage?
Jason Moore
> Modern Hunter gatherers tend to have marriage They don't at all, just look at the San or Pirahã or most any other hunter gatherer tribe still in existence, the men take multiple short-term wives and the groups are generally open and sharing of sex in many instances. A good book on the topic is Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan. Also there's a lot of other stuff which relates too, generally a primate's penis and testicular size relate to its level of relative monogamy/polygamy. Humans have average-small testicles among primates but huge penises relative to their bodies, which going by the trends of other primates such as bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. and their mating patterns suggests that humans are promiscious, particularly males and have a slightly polygamous mating strategy.
