Monogamy is a bad system to Humans

Page 10 of 10 [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

03 Feb 2008, 5:38 pm

here we go again :P

Quote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Only healthiest men have the right to have babies
which I would presume would exclude everyone present. I don't know about you, but if someone says that I'm not allowed to have children, I usually think they're a ****. So LPP, you can stfu.


Toad, there are four kinds of alpha males (and females too but since we are talking again about my imaginative breeding system so we are focusing on the males) : The King(Wealth) , The Knight (Strength) , The Magician (High Intelligence) and the Bard (Fame/Talent).


First of all, all of these four types are preferably to be healthy.

Example of the King type is the successful CEO, a successful CEO MUST have many alpha traits like confidence , dominance , intelligence and even some physical traits (A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 feet tall, which is approximately 3 inches taller than the average American man. Fully 30% of these CEOs were 6 foot 2 inches tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height.[6] Equally significantly, similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5′7″ in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height.) ==> Alpha set of genes , they deserve to be transmitted to the next generation.


Example of the Magician type is Albert Einstein , he was kinda healthy ...he didn't have any serious genetic disease and he has super intelligence and this super intelligence is caused mainly by 'high intelligence genes' , these genes might serve well for the next human generations ==> Alpha set of genes , they deserve to be transmitted to the next generation.


An example of the Knight type : any physically strong healthy male. ==> Alpha set of genes , they deserve to be transmitted to the next generation.


An example of the Bard type : Many singers and Hollywood actors , they have genes that allow to be either handsome , talented in acting or singing ... ===> Alpha set of genes , they deserve to be transmitted to the next generation.

These four types of Alpha males are the ones who make 90% of world' females drool over them . There are also Betas and Omegas fall in one of these categories .
ie: The first student who gets expelled from any singing Reality Show is an Omega bard because his level singing is weak (weak voice or not very talented) compared to others and can't compete for the winning, he'll never get the fame as much as the winner , probably he'll be forgotten quickly.
ie2 The runner who is always the last , is an omega/beta Knight because his physical capabilities don't allow him to win any medal.

There are other males who don't fall in any of these four categories , these are the males are not good in anything in life.


PS: I am not one of the healthiest men and I am not any alpha.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

03 Feb 2008, 10:00 pm

I would hope that if LPPs ideas were implemented that men who werent allowed would stage a violent revolution and slaughter the men deemed genetically healthy until such a system was overturned.



aspiedude
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 55

07 Feb 2008, 8:00 pm

Since I'd probably be a "beta" male, why the F would I take care of your child?

But lemme blow some more holes in your theroy:

let's say you have 100 men and 100 women:

In a monogomas world:

100 men hook up with 100 women creating 200 babies each with their own genetic charactheristics(sp?).

In Enguentics land:

out of 100 men, only 10 are Alpha (Really, there can only be one alpha, but let's play along), so here's the math:

10 men sex 100 women creating 200 kids but only 20 seperate gene pools.

Mathmatically, it wouldn't be long before half-brother met half-sister and viola! genetic shitstorm.



LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

19 Feb 2008, 5:35 pm

Asipedude's post was the best counter-argument in this thread , he really got me ....yes there's a hole in this system that I totally missed.

Here the hole:


10 m +100f
=200 babies (lot A) (50% males)


10m +100f
=200 babies (lot B) (50% males)

10m +100f
200 babies (lot C) (50% males)

10m +100f
200 babies (lot D) (50% males)



Let’s say 10% of each lot are Alpha males ,so we don’t allow the alpha males to breed with the females of their own lot, so:



10m (of lot A) +100f (of lot B) => 200 babies (lot AB)


10m (of lot B) +100f (of lot A) = > 200 babies (lot AB)



10m (of lot C) +100f (of lot D) => 200 babies (lot CD)

10m (of lot D) +100f (of lot C) => 200 babies (lot CD)




Alpha male selection again based on 10%:


10 m sex (of lot AB) +100 f (of lot CD) = > 200 babies (of lot ABCD)


10 m sex (of a lot CD) +100 f(of lot AB) => 200 babies (of a lot ABCD)




==> This is a problem. No more genetic diversity. Aspiedude won the battle


....but not the war :P! !


ADJUSTMENTS

To avoid that and to assure the improving of the genetic quality , here the major adjustments that must be applied on this imaginary system:

**filtering period 1 **

10 m + 100f
=>200 babies (lot A) (50% males)


10m + 100f
=>200 babies (lot B) (50% males)

10m + 100f
=>200 babies (lot C) (50% males)

10m + 100f
=>200 babies (lot D) (50% males)




**filtering period 2 **

Let’s say 10% of each lot are Alpha males, so we don’t allow the alpha males to breed with the females of their own A so:



10m (of lot A) + 100f (of lot B) => 200 babies (lot AB1)


10m (of lot B) + 100f (of lot A) = > 200 babies (lot AB2)



10m (of lot C) + 100f (of lot D) => 200 babies (lot CD1)

10m (of lot D) + 100f (of lot C) => 200 babies (lot CD2)






***Monogamous mating period*****

100m (of lot AB1) + 100f (of lot CD1) = >200 each with their own genetic characteristics


100m (of lot AB2) + 100f (of lot CD2) = >200 each with their own genetic characteristics


100m (of lot CD1) +100f (of lot AB1) => 200 each with their own genetic characteristics

100m (of lot CD2) + 100f (of lot AB2) => 200 each with their own genetic characteristics

This monogamous period is necessary to recreate a genetic diversity.


And the cycle goes on......



In this way we’ll assure:

-Filtering over long-term the overall human genetic pool in order to improve its overall quality by the 2 polygamous periods
-Assuring genetic diversity and avoiding inter-siblings mating by the 1 monogamous period


Thank you aspiedue ....I am looking forward for more counter-arguments.



merr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 515

19 Feb 2008, 8:33 pm

twoshots wrote:
If you count the size of egos, I'm pretty sure I tip the scale in LePetitPrince's favor singlehandedly.

Quote:
Oh yes, it's selfish for someone to want a family to share their love with, to let their parents know what it's like to be grandparents, to make someone else's needs the focal point of their life for 18 years.


Yes. It is selfish if the need to reproduce overpowers other considerations like the quality of life of the offspring.
You guys are forgetting that there is more to life than survival of the fittest and other overly-logical statements. Who says the children she has will even have the disease she carries? And does that mean they wont be of any use to society at all? As I recall, many of the great artists, novelists, and even countless others had some issues here and there. Many intelligent people died young. I suppose Steven Hawkins has a problem that may be considered genetically unfit...but he certainly has done a lot, hasnt he.

The moral of the story is we cant predict what a child will be or who they will become from the sole aspect of the parents. So no, it is not selfsih to bring a baby into this world if you love it and raise it right.



sands
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 275

19 Feb 2008, 11:48 pm

:oops: Gosh this baby making operation sounds so romantic!! !! !!


_________________
Cassandra Lou

What's normal anyway?


Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

21 Sep 2008, 12:53 pm

Monogamy has been around for a while and its pretty clear by now that it Works! You are commiting a fallacy by thinking that because its unnatural means that is necessarily bad. I find it very curious that you like to think of yourself as an
Alpha Male and so you should get to have your cake and eat it to by being able to sleep with all the desirable females. One of the things you FAILED to take into account is the role of male violence in terms of sexual selection. If one male gets all the females, the other males will be jealous and angry and conspire to KILL the alpha males to get access to his women. You happen to live in a part of the world where alpha-males get all the women and the result is seemingly endless bloodshed. Monogamy succeeds in greatly reducing male violence by ensuring that nearly All males will have the chance to get a female.
Civilization in fact is not *natural* and yet it has been so successful that it has nearly wiped out the tribal lifestyle across the world.Furthermore, in this day and age, promiscuity is dangerous and can have DEADLY consquences( AIDS for example ).
LePetitePrince: you might wanna think about moving to a more conservative muslim country where you could legally have multiple wives if you think monogamy is such a drag. :wink:


LePetitPrince wrote:
I think this thread should be in the science thread but since it talks about relations, and since this section has much more traffic then here we go:

From a pure scientific perspective,Monogamy is a bad system for the future generations of Humans. Monogamous might be a important factor for the increase of the inherited genetic diseases/disorders among the human population, why? It's simple , because Monogamy system is giving the opportunity and the right for every damn individual to get married and to have children, whether this individual has good genes or totally messed up genes. Today, almost everyone wants to marry , most men have the chance to have children and to get married , even the dwarfs and the inborn physically handicapped have the opportunity to get married and to have children = a better change to transmit bad genes from one generation to another = increase of # of physically handicapped babies = bad evolution in the long term!

Monogamy has suppressed the important evolutionary role that the female posses: The natural selection.
Female humans,like most primate species, are naturally the main controllers of the natural selection. The females are the ones who supposed to pick the best male in a group (=best genes for future children).
With the silly monogamous system, a lot of women are obliged to pick an unhealthy man as a mate since the gender ratio is almost 1:1 . Men and women are being brainwashed by silly religious ideas and by silly romantic ideas about 1women-1man-forever love sh** which make us hard to accept Polygamy.

The best reproduction system of the future of human's quality is an organized Polygamy :
-Only healthiest men have the right to have babies and women can only marry one of these alpha men. Each Alpha can breed with specified large number of womens.
- Alpha and beta females have the right to breed
-The very omega/unhealthy females have no right to breed
-The beta/omega males have no right to breed.

But then children would lack protection with 1 parent only and If men and women insist to live a "1woman-1man-forever family sh** life" that would make problems , there's a solution for that :
the best solution is the 'social and biological fathers' system , it's a biologically-polygamous system and it's socially-monogamous system at the same time.

Like most species of birds, only alphas can breed with the females but every male(including betas and omegas) can be a social father. An omega/beta male bird picks a female as a life mate to raise her babies with her despite the fact that he's not the biological father of her babies but the babies would gain the protection of 2 parents instead of 1! This is the smartest reproduction system : Best sperm win + Best genes transmitted+ family life (security).

Humans can do that too , we can allow only the alpha males among us to spread their spermas among the married women and their husbands would be the social fathers (betas/omega and even alphas) who would provide the necessary security and protection for the future children but an omega or beta must NOT be allowed to have children with her wife (better to infertile them Lol).

As for the STDs risk's spread , this can be easily controlled if the spemas of Alphas are well-checked in the sperm banks.

With this system , we would assure that the best set of genes among males would be transmitted to the next generation hence better offspring , healthier humans for the future, less probability of genetic diseases and we would assure the necessary protection and father's love for children and every1 would get the necessary affection and sexual life.

Crazy idea I know , but these are just thoughts :P



LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

21 Sep 2008, 1:54 pm

Quote:
. I find it very curious that you like to think of yourself as an
Alpha Male and so you should get to have your cake and eat it to by being able to sleep with all the desirable females


PS: I never claimed to be an alpha male. In fact ,I am far from it , I am beta or omega....

or I am one of the few Gamma males ....a self-destructive radioactive one. :lol:



LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

21 Sep 2008, 1:57 pm

Quote:
LePetitePrince: you might wanna think about moving to a more conservative muslim country where you could legally have multiple wives if you think monogamy is such a drag.


Islamic polygamy is closer to Christian monogamy than the natural polygamy.

Serial monogamy in the western civilizations is closer to the natural polygamy than the Christian monogamy.



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

21 Sep 2008, 3:07 pm

LePetitPrince wrote:
Quote:
LePetitePrince: you might wanna think about moving to a more conservative muslim country where you could legally have multiple wives if you think monogamy is such a drag.


Islamic polygamy is closer to Christian monogamy than the natural polygamy.



How is that so? The ONLY christian sect that permits polygamy is Mormonism.


Quote:
Serial monogamy in the western civilizations is closer to the natural polygamy than the Christian monogamy.


Is your reason for saying such because adultry/infidelity is not a criminal offense in western countries?