Do you think biologically, that we should be with the same 'partner'.?

Question

for our entire lives? Boilogically we are ment to spread our genes as much as possible to as many different partners as possible, the animal kingdom does this all the time.

but soicially does marraige/and being with that same person really work any more? We live in such a disposible sociity

Answer 1

Biology doesnt necessarily say this. It's true on the surface that spreading your genes as far and wide as possible would seem the best bet to their survival. But, after a point, this can cause 'friction' in the system, making it harder for anyone to survive, or at least dropping the quality of life way down. Civilization and 'laws' have tried to make a system that works in a more cooperative manner. Like bees, who sting you and die. That doesn't help them or their genes: but it helps the hive.

Answer 2

biologically?

that doesn't mean much

many animals mate for life

many do not

no other animals have culture or civilization

mating for life is an almost universal custom among the human cultures of the earth, even though various communities of humans in various times have not followed the custom completely, it remains the ideal in most traditions

this would seem to indicate that "biologically", humans are one of those species who do better when they mate for life and stay with the same partner

remember, it is pointless to "spread genes" and begat children that will not survive or will not flourish

biologically, we produce children able to compete when they are developed in a good envrionment

and more importantly, it is a ridiculous cop-out to try to sidestep or reduce the important social, moral, and cultural aspects of bringing human beings into the world\
----------

and yes, of course it works
society may or may not be "disposeable", but people are not

there are many many many couples throughout the world who mated for life and raised children with an above average probability of contributing and building

there are many single parents who have raised wonderful children and orphans who have made their way, but scientific studies (and common sense) continue to show that children that grow up in a home with a father and a mother who are both their parents have the best chance

furthermore, you yourself know that this is true, you are just looking for some eplanation to rationalize you desire to play and avoid responsibility and struggle of true intimacy

get over it, grow up

real happiness only comes with the responsibility and struggle of true intimacy that includes life-long committment and fidelity

wishing it were different won't make it different
societal changes, doesn't change the fundamental

Answer 3

I think your question is a bit mis-informed and an answer is possible!

First, when you say we are "meant to spread our genes", that is to say that is our goal for existance. Evolutionarily speaking, there is a difference. If the goal of evolution is to maintain the survival of the species, then yes, spreading our genes to maintain genetic variation is very important. But that is not all of it; To mate excessively means competition for resource and space. Lack of resources/space would kill off many babies and also take up resources that could have fed the few surviving babies longer. The result would be counterproductive; not only are you not maintaining the survival of your species, you're also harming it by draining resources unncessarily.

Hence, it is better to say, have genetic variation successfully by having those new genetic differences to be able to be passed on to offspring.

Also, animals/organisms do not know that they are "meant to be" genetically varying. A species does not need to be genetically varied if the environment does not call for it. Genetic variation alone is harmful, neutral, beneficial to a species. Take for example 2 strains of a bacteria: 1 strain feeds effectively in fructose environment while the other strain feeds on both fructose and glucose but not as effectively. The environment dictates which will survive: the 1st strain would thrive in fructose environment while the 2nd strain would reproduce at a slower rate and probably die out with sucessive generations. In this case, its duel feeding genetic variation is harmful for it. In a glucose environment, strain 1 would die and strain 2 would survive and thus LOWER genetic variation. THis is going off topic but you get the point that organisms do not know that genetic variation is needed but is dictated by environment instead.


Back to the same partner question: yes and no but leaning more to yes. Reproducing excessively only means the possibility to pass on traits; it the offspring is born, finds itself unable to be independent for whatever reason, it will die. This is particularly true with humans;babies are not born knowing what do to automatically. Parents need to teach them to survive/ support them. So biologically speaking, yes, have as many partners as you can but make sure you are capable of supporting the offspring until they are adults themselves.

Answer 4

In your case the answer is "no". The animal kingdom, for the most part, also takes care of the fact that only the fittest and most intelligent are chosen to replicate. This leaves you out. Your gene pool isn't deep enough to drown a flea.

Answer 5

You are operating under the assumption that bioglogical success, that is ultimate success, is to be genetically represented in future generations. And accordingly, you would assume to do so we should spread our "genes". Spoken like a true - guy! No offense, but of course, women would have a bigger problem here, because you could go off and spread your genes all day long while she is pregnant and has to eventually bring up the kids. Alone, that would be difficult. Hence, she's picky. And so it could be an advantage for you to be a steady kinda guy. It would mean that she can expect you to share the burden of bringing up the kids, which should make her more likely to choose you over the dark, handsome and mysterious stranger with the sexy three-day shadow... Alright, bad example, but you are getting my drift.

Sharing the burden of bringing up the kids of course does not only mean that you get chosen more likely; in fact, she doesn't know if you are more reliable than the Johnny Depp wonna-be. But, caring for your offspring, especially when they need a few years to become independent, will also increase their survival prospects, and as such your inclusive fitness. So, there is a case to be made for being loyal to your partner.

That is, of course, when you are an adaptionist and a reductionist. Human behavior is far more complicated than sexual selection theory describes it. To be sure, I don't share Joan Roughgarden's notion that sexual selection does not exist. It just turns out to be a little more complicated than we thought. Even in "simpler" critters than ourselves, thee is lots of evidence that both sexes choose - against all that theory predicts.

see, the reason that against expectations and better knowledge, many of us choose partners, at least for good amounts of time, who are NOT good for us points at the very complex problem of culture and social experiences within a certain cultural context. While you are absolutely right if you assume that much of our behavior is biologically determined (i.e., nature), you'd be far off to assume that culture and social interactions (i.e., nurture) does not affect how we respond to certain situations. In other words, it is neither just nature nor just nurture, but both.

Which brings me to your basic assumption of genes to be the focus of the selection pressure. Your definition of biological success is a very genocentric one. And while I agree with you that reproduction is central to being biologically successful, it is too simple to assume it is all about passing on the genes... One problem here may be the genotype/phenotype dualism, which, while heuristically certainly valuable, nevertheless is cause for much confusion and slightly mistaken interpretations. The two parts of the organism are not as distinct as we often make them out to be. It may even be better to abandon the notion altogether. Genes by themselves are not at all able to express themselves, and the enzymes required for the first gene expression in a fertilized ovum, could not express anything if it weren't for the genes. (Footnote: If you have a good definition of gene you'd be far ahead of the curve... The "gene" is really a metaphysical concept that is just as elusive to scientific investigation as "fitness" or "consciousness". Nonethless, these concepts are helpful, if not necessary for us to study life in the first place. End footnote.) In other words, genotype and phenotype are at best differences in unity. But that makes a genocentric definition of biological success very difficult.

So, to answer your question then, there are numerous reasons why it at least makes biological sense to stay with your partner for a long while. Going around and spreading your genes will give you a lot of superficial pleasure, and probably in the long run a rather dull and empty existence. On the other hand, growing with another person through time can be a very fulfilling experience. This is also true for couples who cannot have children due to either infertility or sexual orientation. To reduce us to reproductive machines, while sexy from an adaptionistic perspective, is simply a rather sad and overall unsuccessful way of trying to udnerstand what it means to be human.

Hope this helps.

Answer 6

my personal feeling on the matter is that humans probably are best in large extended families where a husband has 2 or 3 wives. This maximizes productivity of offspring and ensures there is always somone around to take care of them and allows for several children to be born in one year, but still have a strong male and female figure (parents grandparents uncles aunts) in thier lives.

Answer 7

That's the reason why they are called animals and we are called humans. Inbreds! Image how many damaged screwed up people we would create if we had sex with whom ever we felt like . It is morally wrong to to spread your genes all over the world because eventually somewhere down the line we would all be related. inbred related = retarded!

Answer 8

I think it is safer to stay with the same partner due to infectious diseases. Although people can mate for life, they still breed with separate cultures and races. Thus you have individuals that are genetically enhanced, and those who get the "leftovers". Given Darwinism the strong will still survive due to genetic variability.

Answer 9

yes we should stay with the same partner its called commitment which people seem to lack nowadays,further more dont compare people to animals its entirely different,although there are monogamous animals

Answer 10

Biologically, you question may not seem clear. Socially though, if we did this, we would have lots of lost and hopeless children...thats right WE DO!!!!