De-evolution of monogamy

[PinotNoir]

If you keep up with current events, you probably read this recently:

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/07/monogamy-may-have-evolved-prevent-infanticide

Among primates, including perhaps humans, monogamy evolved because it protected infants from being killed by rival males.

This got me thinking an unusual thought... wonder if white-knighting and friend-zoned guys are now causing the de-evolution of monogamy? Very ironic. Now, in the modern world, a woman does not need a man so much to protect her young. Of course, "causation does not prove correlation," as this could be due to tighter laws, better/more police, ownership of a gun, etc. But, also, women can create orbiters -- men perpetually in the friend zone that will assist whenever they call and protect their young. Has the woman that wants monogamy and the white-knighting man inadvertently created the devolving of monogamy (the opposite of what was created through evolution as posed in the article)? How very ironic.

This isn't even a theory, just an interesting question/thought

 

[Ross]

We're always evolving. Monogamy may have worked in the past for one reason or another; there's a reason it arose as the most popular form of reproduction.

Monogamy is too possessive for me. There are too many rules. I hope to fully develop a system which keep good relations between all people and gets rid of the construct of monogamy in a way which would have many more benefits and less shortcomings. It would orbit around keeping a community of people which all men have equal opportunity to plant a seed, and all women have opportunity to reproduce.

This flies in the face of many theories of evolution. The whole competition theory is thrown out the window. The reason it can throw evolution out the window is by superseding reproductive evolution. When a species can effectively develop enough to properly protect civilization in every respect in regards to health, environmental changes, etc. there is no need for selective reproduction.

Still working on all the frame work, but it's deep stuff. All I know is that society is far from ideal for a large majority of people. Biological imperatives aren't being met. Even when they are, emotions take their toll and result in a less than enjoyable life. If that can be changed. To feed those who need it, to meet emotional satisfaction, and live an enjoyable, sustainable life in which everyone can take part regardless of who they are. The current social norms don't allow for that. There is far too much which needs to be changed before this happens.

Just a little bit to think about.

 

[trashKENNUT]

Day by day, i learn that women are more of a liability than an asset. Women are great and it is but as i learn more, it just keep reassuring that women are more of a liability than an asset. Don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Zac

 

[PinotNoir]

Great philosophical thoughts guys.

Ross, if everyone was a perfect clone, I guess we'd never have to worry about such trivialities as selection If you know that your husband/wife will NOT have or pass on diseases, disorders, etc., then it does seem that way. With the advances of society, it may one day lead to that. But, I think personality is still a learned trait (part genetic, part learned). Selection would 100% be focused on personality then, I think. A community-oriented "relationship" sounds interesting and could possibly work -- if emotions are handled correctly (if that is possible), perhaps with proper schooling from a young age.

ZacAdam, I agree that a women should be perceived as a companion if anything, not an asset to achieve. And you are right... a woman will chisel away at a man, a "liability" that can make you more of a man -- at least, the stereotypical perceived notion of man.

 

[trashKENNUT]

To add about De-evolution of monogamy, even self-help gurus like Jack Canfield, The Chicken Soup of the Soul Author mention most families are dysfunctional.

Zac