English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-31 07:20:32 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

I said to set aside sexual mating behaviors in my Q, and immediately somebody feels so outraged he has to address the aspect that has been deliberately set aside by the asker. Sex has economic consequences, especially if offspring result ,or if diseases are transmitted, or if bad genes are carried forward in the gene pool, or etc.But my desire was to set aside those matters--but nooooo- I, the Q-asker must remember to think that asking participating people with an education to focus their minds on all other economic behaviors is just pain stupid of me. Can't anybody read the Q as asked, instead of blowing it up with criticisms. This is the Madness of the Yahoo Q & A format--that so few want to address the Q as it was asked!!!!! And then they go on criticize the asker even though they know nothing about the asker except of course, the Q that was asked.

TWH07292006

2006-07-31 09:57:37 · update #1

6 answers

Excellent question heeltap. I've always believed that any human behaviour, wether it's vital to survival or not, can be explained by economic rules and principles. The most basic principle is the cost/benefit analysis that we conduct (knowingly or otherwise) before making any decision or taking any action in life. I wish I was clever enough to fully answer this question.

2006-07-31 11:43:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I can think of some non-economic ones...

How about this, in hurricane conditions people nail down shutters and batton down the hatches so they do not peril in the storm.

Or, a mother nurses a child. Physical matters to survival and nothing to do with economy.

Exercise--physical behavior to prolonge life. Nothing economic about that unless you pay for a club or a machine.

2006-08-01 16:11:21 · answer #2 · answered by adieu 6 · 0 0

First off, sexual mating IS an economic behavior. In traditional societies, poor men cannot afford to marry, while poor women have poor marriage prospects due to small size of their dowry. In modern society, people often date and marry within their income strata (marrying into money is considered atypical enough to attract public attention).

Almost all behaviors have an economic underpinning; sometimes it is strong, sometimes it's barely discernible. For example, in a modern society parental favoritism is almost entirely void of economic significance (unless there's inheritance involved). In traditional societies, parental favoritism is often mandated (for example, the oldest son is supposed to take over the family farm, while the youngest is supposed to take care of the parents in their old age, and the middle sons are on their own altogether). So parents respect the oldest, lavish their attention on the youngest, and neglect the rest.

2006-07-31 14:48:02 · answer #3 · answered by NC 7 · 0 0

Not necessarily. You ask about physical behaviors that matter to "survival." I suppose the words "physical" and "survival" are what stick out in my mind after reading your question. In terms of physical behaviors I would argue human socialization is, traditionally, a non-economic behavior. Not necessarily who we choose to socialize with is economic, but the very act of socializing. We socialize to survive not only in the human environment, but also the physical environment. Without socialization and language, our ancestors and our contemporaries would have no means to communicate best practices that are essential to survival. Our socialization in families are vital to our survival. In the western world there is little economic reason to have children (agriculturally based economies aside). Yet we continue to do so for many obvious reasons. I would argue that even in agriculturally based economies a father or mother would not be concerned for the welfare of their children (ignoring cultural and social biases against girls, of course).

So, to answer your question, no, I think the primary physical behavior that is vital to human survival is socialization itself. Economic behaviors may spring from that socialization, it may even be the cause in many cases, but it serves its own purpose.

2006-07-31 18:42:20 · answer #4 · answered by Bamos 3 · 0 0

Of course. "Economics" is simply the commerce that moves goods and services from hand to hand. Such as the food from the field to your mouth of the medicine from a factory to your arm .... economics is really nothing more than the study of how stuff is distributed and stuff is very vital to survival.

2006-07-31 14:26:47 · answer #5 · answered by sam21462 5 · 0 0

you mean like work? lots of animals like to play to, including us.

2006-07-31 14:24:10 · answer #6 · answered by sssnole 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers