Our closest extant relatives are polygamous, so how can we know that our species was designed for monogamy? I'm not disputing anthropological evidence for monogamy, I just think it's probably more of a cultural than a biological development.
This is true for humans. But what needs to be made clear is that by "cultural development" we are talking about ancient (tens of thousands of years ago) humans, not modern cultural humans. We are talking about the behavior patterns that emerged at the same time our species emerged as unique. You cannot separate our species rise and monogamy, the two are clearly interrelated: humans needed long training periods, tons of nutrition, and helplessness at birth to clear their large heads from the birth canal in order to grow up in to smart, omnivorous, efficient, killing machines. That kind of adolescence required two attentive parents, as well as a close family group. Many anthropologists argue that the greatest attribute that contributed to humanity's rise was that grandparents lived long enough to aid in the family unit's food-gathering.
What isn't true is that modern cultural development has promoted monogamy. On the contrary, since the development of agriculture, our species has widely strayed from monogamy, as caste systems of various sorts emerged. Modern monogamy is really a product of modern ethics, not biology.
And to the reader I rebut: our closest relatives are not polygamous, but rather polygynous, which I believe is what you are arguing, not polygamy.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment