As a living being bound by the processes and instincts of evolution, isn't it natural that I should seek to breed as much as possible, isn't getting as many offspring as possible my main objective? So why not take child wives, why not take ten? Wouldn't that increase my chances of survival?
2007-04-06 11:44:21 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
NOTE: I have neither begun to nor shall I ever support creationism. I simply wish to hold all theories accountable to their most obvious flaws.
2007-04-06 11:46:19 · update #1
Producing a large number of offspring is one survival strategy for your genes, but it is not the only one. Having just a few offpring with one mate and devoting a lot of resources to their well-being is another. In addition, nothing compels you to follow any particular objective - the fossil record is littered with thousands of extinct species which got something wrong, and paid the price.
2007-04-06 11:57:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
About 35 years ago i wrote a paper for a sociology class justifying polygamy as the most natural way to insure a good healthy gene pool. In nature only the most studly males get to mate . By using natural selection to cull out the weakest genes the gene pool gets stronger. The girly men don't get to mate .
In addition ten wives almost would guarantee that the offspring would be communally raised and until very recently that is how humans were raised . In historical terms, the nuclear family is still very much an on going experiment and no one is quite sure how it will all turn out .
I will now wait for the thumbs down .
2007-04-06 19:14:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Multiple partners would not increase the individuals chances of survival; where did you find such an erroneous concept ? Large numbers of births/eggs/offspring will generally occur where that species has reduced life expectancy, ie, prey species, frogs, reptiles, insects, and smaller rodents and birds. Animals at the top end of the food chain generally have fewer offspring, ie, Man, large herbivores, Lions, Tigers, Elephants. There are many other factors affecting procreation, but in general terms ,animals with longer life spans need fewer replacements.
2007-04-06 19:02:57 · answer #3 · answered by ED SNOW 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before the advent of societies and the mores they live by, yes man did spread his seed to as many available young ladies as possible. With the evolution of man and societies, man has evolved to just boinking one female. Lots of other animals are monogamous. This isn't a problem for evolution. Man can more easily take care and protect his offspring with monogamy.
2007-04-06 20:17:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is a description of natural processes, not a moral system. If you are looking for moral guidance, you are looking in the wrong place.
The strategy you propose will not enhance your own personal survival, but it may well increase the frequency of your genetic alleles in subsequent generations.
But that is not the same thing as a moral choice.
2007-04-06 21:17:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Can you protect all those children until they reproduce? Can you make sure that those wives aren't sponging off you and having someone else's child? Do you really think you could take me if I wanted to control your harem? How do you regulate population?
You have a viable survival strategy that has a number of downsides. It works for walruses, not primates.
2007-04-06 19:48:26 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off, the law wouldnt allow it. Secondly, financial resources would not make that advantageous for survival. Thirdly, you will note that this is EXACTLY what goes on in inner city ghettos...and you see the mess it leaves behind.
Get real dude.
2007-04-06 18:50:52 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is not a flaw in the theory. We are human beings, and we have intelligence, common sense, and empathy. We have the ability to think, and to reason. And these abilities make us not want to act like UNCIVILIZED animals, running around like drooling horny idiots who can't control ourselves. The point is, we have evolved beyond that.
2007-04-06 20:25:24 · answer #8 · answered by Jess H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't know enough about human evolution. When the higher mind took over instinct took a passenger seat.
2007-04-06 18:56:32 · answer #9 · answered by Magus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a.world is over populated
b.cant support them
c.having children does not increase your chances of surviving. your confusing it with passing on your genetics.
d.humans have evolved past instincts.
e.all of the above
2007-04-06 18:57:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋