Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/2/08 12:25 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/2/08 12:02 AM, Lindione wrote:

My point is only that if you allow polygamy, for it to be right you have to allow it the other way around as well. Would you be prepared for that?

polygamy goes both ways already

Fine, then, no qualms here about that.

Not only webbed feet, but if there isn't enough genetic diversity

we'll worry about that when we're only like 20 people left.
There's 6++++ billion people on earth, that argument is so weak right now it's not even funny. Maybe in like 2 million years it would make a difference. Maybe.

Not as weak as your making it out to be, it won't take 2 million years, and most of those 6 billion people can only interact with those in their community. You have to think about it unless you want to start transplanting people which most people won't want.

and ussually after a period of time what society thinks becomes law.

Tough shit? What am I supposed to say here? "don't have ideas or someone will take it too far"?
Some moms would be delighted to have a Britney baby mixed with maybe a little Bono or some shit. They wouldn't be pressured into giving out sperm and eggs, they'd be heavily rewarded financially by the private sector, since there's obviously a shitload of cash to be made with this.

I'm actullaly saying don't have bad ideas that become popular. I also don't know about how popular designed babies would be, since right now the private sector really only has a market for people who can't have kids the conventional way. People have a natural urge to have their own genes survive (its why parents are so concerned for their kids). If people have kids that have other peoples genes, parents won't feel the same urge and some people won't care as much about their children.

Catholics would need a practical reason to include monogamy into their set of rules and I wish to know that reason.

Basically they wanted people to pair up, get married and have one kid every year and be afraid that not doing that would make them burn in hell. It was a lifestyle that was well-suited for peasant life and now we don't need that shit anymore since we're not peasants and we can meet other people easily all over the place but our religious traditions instruct us to find a single person and tough it out with them for the rest of our lives, which isn't something 99% of humans are suited to.

Actullaly more than 50% of people who get married seem to do that just fine (I say more than 50% since people get multiple divorces). A lot of people around the world aren't much better than peasants actullaly. Also, you still haven't anwsered the question of why would they want people to live that way. Wouldn't peasants be better off in the eyes of the church not breeding and passing on their poorness to the next generation? Why would they want that instead of polygamy, in which ussualy a rich guy is able to support many children? If they wanted that, they would authorize polygamy and tell all the girls to ignore the poor guys and go for the rich guys.

At 3/2/08 01:00 AM, SolInvictus wrote: given both what it takes in terms of survival as well as raising humans it would seem couples are the optimal mating arrangement for humans.

I can't wait for the argument you can bring that says it's easier to be one guy and one girl instead of two girls and one guy.

At 3/2/08 01:21 AM, poxpower wrote: I can't wait for the argument you can bring that says it's easier to be one guy and one girl instead of two girls and one guy.

well providing for more than one mate is already an added challenge, and i'm fairly sure it would be safe to assume that a greater number of mates means a greater number of offspring, further adding to the difficulties of providing.
within what context are we judging this? hunter-gatherer/man in natural state or modern society? they have their own particular dilemmas.

damn new BBS that hides the little quote ":" things

At 3/2/08 01:08 AM, Lindione wrote:

Not as weak as your making it out to be, it won't take 2 million years, and most of those 6 billion people can only interact with those in their community.

less and less.
Not to mention that we're all already related and come from the same one female.

DNA also diversifies itself naturally ( or else I guess evolution is bullshit), or else all the animal population and humans would eventually have the same DNA, even if we started fucking animals, we'd all at some point be one same animal.

I'm actullaly saying don't have bad ideas that become popular.

this is an awesome idea.
Think of the reverse. What if we were polygamist and some "craaaazy" dude was saying we should all be just one guy and one girl and BY LAW WE'D BE MARRIED.

HOLY SHIT NOOOOOOOOOO

I also don't know about how popular designed babies would be,

as popular as they'd be cheap and as cheap as they'd be popular. Capitalism.

People have a natural urge to have their own genes survive

Prove it.
That's just the way we're raised. the way hollywood and tv and novels and everything just says "yes, my legacy carries on" etc. etc. but that's stupid since when you're dead, you're dead. It's also something you hear a lot on the Discovery channel, how the animals "want to pass on their genes" but what they mean is that the animals want to fuck.
Though some do kill the babies that aren't theirs, so maybe there's something there, but animals are stupid so who know?

(its why parents are so concerned for their kids).

well it takes a lot of work to make a kid

Actullaly more than 50% of people who get married seem to do that just fine (I say more than 50% since people get multiple divorces).

Just because they don't get a divorce doesn't mean they're happy and they don't cheap on each other.
Maybe I'm an ass for using media to back myself up here, but marriage is portrayed as really really bad once you're passed the first couple years. Like a ball and chain where the woman gets fat and sexless and the hudband bald and drunk.

Also, you still haven't anwsered the question of why would they want people to live that way.

to perpetuate the religion? Religious is passed down from parents to kid, so when you have 12 kids, you get 12 new followers.

Wouldn't peasants be better off in the eyes of the church not breeding and passing on their poorness to the next generation?

hell no, it was much better that the peasants be really stupid. As for the poor part, that was the job of the king taxing them ( sometimes too much ) and giving a cut to the religious head figures to build and maintain monasteries and cathedrals and whatnot.
They didn't know dick about DNA, they just wanted to see tons of new kids to work the land and be dumb little religious peasants who pay taxes and don't ask questions.

Why would they want that instead of polygamy, in which ussualy a rich guy is able to support many children?

Rich guys didn't want to support the children, they just wanted to sleep around with lots of women, and that's what they did. Basically they'd take an official wife, have some kids with her so they would be the heirs, and then sleep around with lots of mistresses in the meantime and hope they don't get too pregnant.

At 3/2/08 01:38 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

well providing for more than one mate is already an added challenge, and i'm fairly sure it would be safe to assume that a greater number of mates means a greater number of offspring, further adding to the difficulties of providing.

unless they all have jobs in which case it becomes far easier to care for them financially. Plus more people = easier to take care of the kids while the other two go out or whatever.
It's aaaaaaaaaaall upside once you get pass the jealousy. I mean, are you assuming women are like dead weight who'd never get a job or something?

within what context are we judging this?

uuuuh right now?
Why would I suddenly say that it would have been better for cavemen to be polygamist. Oh wait they were polygamist anyways.

At 3/1/08 01:42 PM, poxpower wrote: Polygamy would rule. See if only super-stud guys had kids with the women, then eventually kids would all be strong and healthy.

No it wouldn't...
Not many studs are smart, have money, and provide a stable life...

Not saying that married people are ugly and stuff... but a player can't be a player and still be married (for long.)

But, you don't need marriage to produce children.

Take me for example.

idiots don't wear condoms. They are already at an advantage in terms of reproducing more often.

At 3/2/08 01:58 AM, poxpower wrote: damn new BBS that hides the little quote ":" things

At 3/2/08 01:08 AM, Lindione wrote:

Not as weak as your making it out to be, it won't take 2 million years, and most of those 6 billion people can only interact with those in their community.

less and less.
Not to mention that we're all already related and come from the same one female.

Thats if you beileive in the whole Adam and Eve story, we evolved from basically monkeys and groups of women evolved at the same time to become human since their environment supported it so the human race had a huge amount of females and their very diverse gene pool to start out with. The vast majority of us are related, but not all of us and not as much as you think.

DNA also diversifies itself naturally ( or else I guess evolution is bullshit), or else all the animal population and humans would eventually have the same DNA, even if we started fucking animals, we'd all at some point be one same animal.

Actullaly human and animals have a different number of chromosomes so they can't breed.

I'm actullaly saying don't have bad ideas that become popular.

this is an awesome idea.
Think of the reverse. What if we were polygamist and some "craaaazy" dude was saying we should all be just one guy and one girl and BY LAW WE'D BE MARRIED.

HOLY SHIT NOOOOOOOOOO

Yes, but how would it become popular? If its the church look at all the things the church says to not do but we do them anyway. There also has to be a reason that crazy guy came up with it.

I also don't know about how popular designed babies would be,

as popular as they'd be cheap and as cheap as they'd be popular. Capitalism.

People have a natural urge to have their own genes survive

Prove it.
That's just the way we're raised. the way hollywood and tv and novels and everything just says "yes, my legacy carries on" etc. etc. but that's stupid since when you're dead, you're dead. It's also something you hear a lot on the Discovery channel, how the animals "want to pass on their genes" but what they mean is that the animals want to fuck.
Though some do kill the babies that aren't theirs, so maybe there's something there, but animals are stupid so who know?

Then why did people commit altruistic actions for their family or group before there was any media at all? People in your family have a lot of the same genes so you naturally wish to see your family survive. Its why people give their lives to save their families.

(its why parents are so concerned for their kids).

well it takes a lot of work to make a kid

Then they would want the kid gone as soon as possible since its a lot of work to raise a kid too. Yet they raise them and make sure they are safe.

Actullaly more than 50% of people who get married seem to do that just fine (I say more than 50% since people get multiple divorces).

Just because they don't get a divorce doesn't mean they're happy and they don't cheap on each other.
Maybe I'm an ass for using media to back myself up here, but marriage is portrayed as really really bad once you're passed the first couple years. Like a ball and chain where the woman gets fat and sexless and the hudband bald and drunk.

Since after the first couple of years they don't really need to have sex as they have already passed on their genes. It is also not like that in every case either, so there must be an explanation for that.

Also, you still haven't anwsered the question of why would they want people to live that way.

to perpetuate the religion? Religious is passed down from parents to kid, so when you have 12 kids, you get 12 new followers.

Wouldn't it be just the same amount of kids if one guy had children with 10 women at the same rate as 10 couples having children?

Wouldn't peasants be better off in the eyes of the church not breeding and passing on their poorness to the next generation?

hell no, it was much better that the peasants be really stupid. As for the poor part, that was the job of the king taxing them ( sometimes too much ) and giving a cut to the religious head figures to build and maintain monasteries and cathedrals and whatnot.

They didn't know dick about DNA, they just wanted to see tons of new kids to work the land and be dumb little religious peasants who pay taxes and don't ask questions.

Well, I'm certain they would have noticed hereditary traits. They probably wouldn't know about genetics, but they would figure out that two smart parents ussually make a smart baby. Also, wouldn't a couple have more need for a bunch of kids than a polygamous marraige?

Why would they want that instead of polygamy, in which ussualy a rich guy is able to support many children?

Rich guys didn't want to support the children, they just wanted to sleep around with lots of women, and that's what they did. Basically they'd take an official wife, have some kids with her so they would be the heirs, and then sleep around with lots of mistresses in the meantime and hope they don't get too pregnant.

I didn't say the rich guy wanted to support them. Also, women have a much stronger urge than men to have children, so they would do something about it too. This is also an argument for monogamy, a couple would be able to support kids better instead of one man and a bunch of women who at one point in time couldn't get a job and still these days like it or not make less money then men.

Also, why are some animals monogamous and there are most likely cultures other than Catholics that are monogamous.?

At 3/2/08 02:21 AM, fli wrote:

Not saying that married people are ugly and stuff... but a player can't be a player and still be married (for long.)

Why would he need to be married? Marriage would be meaningless anyways.

At 3/2/08 03:12 AM, jitterman wrote: idiots don't wear condoms. They are already at an advantage in terms of reproducing more often.

well if you look at what's happening in Africa with AIDS, I would say that advantage is pretty squandered haha

At 3/2/08 01:41 PM, Lindione wrote:

Thats if you beileive in the whole Adam and Eve story

haha someone doesn't understand evolution.
They literally have checked the DNA of people and we all have that one little bit of DNA from one distant female ancestor.

Actullaly human and animals have a different number of chromosomes so they can't breed.

genes still diversify naturally, which was the point haha

Yes, but how would it become popular?

first, you make it legal, second you wait for people to do it, then if it starts catching on, the job is done for you.
I'm sure it wouldn't take men a long time to get used to that new system.

Then why did people commit altruistic actions for their family or group before there was any media at all?

Because it's their family? You don't have the same genes as your friends, so why are you nice to them?
OMG YOU ARE GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED TO LIKE YOUR FRIENDS AND YET... THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME GENES?
holy smokes I just blew your mind

Yet they raise them and make sure they are safe.

so are you going to take each sentence I write as the whole absolute entirety of a subject and have me explain commone sense to you every time?
People want kids, they think it will make them happy. There's a lot of great things about having kids, but it's a lot of work and sometimes it makes people very unhappy for a while.

Since after the first couple of years they don't really need to have sex as they have already passed on their genes.

exactly, hence polygamy would rule since you could meet new people and still be with your kids and your wife who you love but who is way fat.

It is also not like that in every case either, so there must be an explanation for that.

Yeah, get this, sometimes people get along for all their lives. WOW what could be the one super-simple one-word explanation you're looking for?

Wouldn't it be just the same amount of kids if one guy had children with 10 women at the same rate as 10 couples having children?

Well the thing is that when you had a girl as a kid, you'd have to marry her to one guy so she would still be alright, and usually in that time you wanted boys to help you around the field, so basically you wanted just one wife to take care of the home, maybe 2-3 girls to give away in marriage and then a shitload of boys to work the field.
Have fun trying to get a harem going when there's 3 guys for every girl.
Of course like I said, Nobles slept around and lot and had bastard children, but they didn't want to tell it too loudly because they didn't want to have to share their power with random lower-royalty people. They also took queens based on political and economic alliance and not really love.

Well, I'm certain they would have noticed hereditary traits.

yeah they did get their panties in a bunch when a redhead kid popped out of nowhere. They didn't know that the gene could skip generations so the wife could eat a bucket of punches to the face when the guy found out.

But beyond that, no, they didn't give two shits about genes. They probably noticed that you'd look like your dad or mom, but what did they care? They didn't have some master plan to breed only the kids with the biggest dicks or anything, anyone who could have kids was encouraged to do so as soon and as often as possible.

Also, wouldn't a couple have more need for a bunch of kids than a polygamous marraige?

In the middle ages, yes, that is correct.

This is also an argument for monogamy, a couple would be able to support kids better instead of one man and a bunch of women who at one point in time couldn't get a job and still these days like it or not make less money then men.

Having two people who work and one who doesn't and takes care of the kids would be such a sweet life, I'm sad you can't realise this. Two salaries of just 30k a year is ample money to raise and care for a family. Shit even two parents working at McDonald's could raise kids properly this way. I don't know what the minimum wage in the U.S. is at the moment but working at wal-mart 40 hours a week for the year brings in maybe 12k which enough to pay rent and utilities for a year and you still have an extra 12k from the other person for food and whatever else. And that's the nightmare scenario.

Polygamy makes smart economical sense, that's just the plain truth. You're again assuming that women are dead weight. Well what if it was two guys and one woman? Damn that's sweet.

Also, why are some animals monogamous and there are most likely cultures other than Catholics that are monogamous.?

Hell if I know. Why do some people put wood panels in their mouth? Why do some people cut off little girl's clitoris?
You need to stop using other people simply doing something as a reason to do it, think for yourself.

At 3/2/08 01:41 PM, Lindione wrote:

Thats if you beileive in the whole Adam and Eve story

haha someone doesn't understand evolution.
They literally have checked the DNA of people and we all have that one little bit of DNA from one distant female ancestor.

We share 98% (I think) of our DNA with monkeys so are you saying we all have the same monkey ancestor? If you could send a link to that study that would be great, I'm very curious to see that. We all have mostly the same DNA and that makes us human.

Actullaly human and animals have a different number of chromosomes so they can't breed.

genes still diversify naturally, which was the point haha

Fine, I can't come up with an argument for that.

Yes, but how would it become popular?

first, you make it legal, second you wait for people to do it, then if it starts catching on, the job is done for you.

How would it be made legal in the first place? Unless the king or the majority of government was crazy and I don't think the people would be happy with that.

I'm sure it wouldn't take men a long time to get used to that new system.

Some men, the ugly and dumb ones want sex too so I don't know how that would work out. There aren't an infinite amount of women out there.

Then why did people commit altruistic actions for their family or group before there was any media at all?

Because it's their family? You don't have the same genes as your friends, so why are you nice to them?
OMG YOU ARE GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED TO LIKE YOUR FRIENDS AND YET... THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME GENES?
holy smokes I just blew your mind

Actullaly people help their friends because they expect help from them when they need it. That system is needed in human society.

Yet they raise them and make sure they are safe.

so are you going to take each sentence I write as the whole absolute entirety of a subject and have me explain commone sense to you every time?
People want kids, they think it will make them happy. There's a lot of great things about having kids, but it's a lot of work and sometimes it makes people very unhappy for a while.

Well if its common sense you shouldn't have any problem anwsering then, as for your anwser I accept it (still don't get the whole kids making people happy but thats probably just me and my disdain of children).

Since after the first couple of years they don't really need to have sex as they have already passed on their genes.

exactly, hence polygamy would rule since you could meet new people and still be with your kids and your wife who you love but who is way fat.

I think people would then be drawn away from their wifes since they would love the new girl more. People already "trade up" their spouses with divorce, we allow something like that the children will have 5 dads or 5 moms or 3 dads 2 moms, etc. Also, I don't think it would be very popular as the newest spouse would have to get along or compete with the other spouses.

It is also not like that in every case either, so there must be an explanation for that.

Yeah, get this, sometimes people get along for all their lives. WOW what could be the one super-simple one-word explanation you're looking for?

Wouldn't it be just the same amount of kids if one guy had children with 10 women at the same rate as 10 couples having children?

Well the thing is that when you had a girl as a kid, you'd have to marry her to one guy so she would still be alright, and usually in that time you wanted boys to help you around the field, so basically you wanted just one wife to take care of the home, maybe 2-3 girls to give away in marriage and then a shitload of boys to work the field.
Have fun trying to get a harem going when there's 3 guys for every girl.
Of course like I said, Nobles slept around and lot and had bastard children, but they didn't want to tell it too loudly because they didn't want to have to share their power with random lower-royalty people. They also took queens based on political and economic alliance and not really love.

Actullaly their parents made their children marry in that situation.

Well, I'm certain they would have noticed hereditary traits.

yeah they did get their panties in a bunch when a redhead kid popped out of nowhere. They didn't know that the gene could skip generations so the wife could eat a bucket of punches to the face when the guy found out.

But beyond that, no, they didn't give two shits about genes. They probably noticed that you'd look like your dad or mom, but what did they care? They didn't have some master plan to breed only the kids with the biggest dicks or anything, anyone who could have kids was encouraged to do so as soon and as often as possible.

Also, people had a ton of kids since most of them didn't live past 5 anyhow.

Also, wouldn't a couple have more need for a bunch of kids than a polygamous marraige?

In the middle ages, yes, that is correct.

Also, your argument is all fine and good in the U.S. but what about those countries that aren't any better than the middle ages.

This is also an argument for monogamy, a couple would be able to support kids better instead of one man and a bunch of women who at one point in time couldn't get a job and still these days like it or not make less money then men.

Having two people who work and one who doesn't and takes care of the kids would be such a sweet life, I'm sad you can't realise this. Two salaries of just 30k a year is ample money to raise and care for a family. Shit even two parents working at McDonald's could raise kids properly this way. I don't know what the minimum wage in the U.S. is at the moment but working at wal-mart 40 hours a week for the year brings in maybe 12k which enough to pay rent and utilities for a year and you still have an extra 12k from the other person for food and whatever else. And that's the nightmare scenario.

Unless you count in the "caretaker" who has to take care of 10 kids all of whom receive less attention from their parents which they deserve. If children weren't involved I'd have no problem with polygamy, It is not my place to say who a person can and can not have sex with, but children need a lot of attention from both parents and a father can not give adequate attention to 20 children.

Polygamy makes smart economical sense, that's just the plain truth. You're again assuming that women are dead weight. Well what if it was two guys and one woman? Damn that's sweet.

I'm not assuming women are dead weight, I'm saying some societies make them that way. You're argument sounds a little bit like socialism as in everything goes into the family "pot" and its distributed as needed, in that case why dosen't everyone marry everyone and be one big happy family.

Also, why are some animals monogamous and there are most likely cultures other than Catholics that are monogamous.?

Hell if I know. Why do some people put wood panels in their mouth? Why do some people cut off little girl's clitoris?
You need to stop using other people simply doing something as a reason to do it, think for yourself.

Probably tradition as it had some silly reason in the ancient times. Yet as stated before monogamy was probably best for the children. It's sounding like you want free love, I'm ok with that. Yet before I'd be ok with any sort of polygamy, I would like to know that it won't have any adverse effect on any children brought into the mix.

uuuuh right now?
Why would I suddenly say that it would have been better for cavemen to be polygamist. Oh wait they were polygamist anyways.

i did some thinking and time would be more or less irrelevant to this discussion. i've never seen any proof that hunter-gatherers were largely polygamists.

as far as provisions go it would in effect be easier today (the pulling their own weight would be incredibly difficult in pre-modern times) and there is no real need for many children, and is generally avoided nowadays. but wealth and the ability to provide still play an important role seeing as the most attractive mates would generally be those who are able to provide the most (who doesn't like freebies?). but even if we were to assume that this was an egalitarian society there would still be the problem of there not being enough men/women. this has been a problem that has plagued polygamist societies resulting in an increased rate of violent crimes among poorer men seeing as they had little to no hope acquiring a wife due to their poverty making them particularly desperate in their efforts to advance themselves socially.
while wealth may not be a factor, the limited numbers of women and men still plays a role, replacing the search for success with the need to mate.
of course one would assume this could be countered by allowing both polygamy and polyandry but the problem with this is that if one chooses to enter into a polygamous/polyandrous (?) relationship that individual will likely have to give up his or her rights to marry as to avoid creating ridiculously large and complex families. in either case it would probably be a legeslative nightmare.

At 3/2/08 03:23 PM, Lindione wrote:

We share 98% (I think) of our DNA with monkeys so are you saying we all have the same monkey ancestor?

yes
here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/
A703199

Actullaly human and animals have a different number of chromosomes so they can't breed.

How would it be made legal in the first place?

you make it legal to marry X people at the same time

Actullaly people help their friends because they expect help from them when they need it. That system is needed in human society.

Oh and we don't expect anything at all from family members? Like succession? Them working the farm? Them bringing happiness in our lives?

I think people would then be drawn away from their wifes since they would love the new girl more. People already "trade up" their spouses with divorce, we allow something like that the children will have 5 dads or 5 moms or 3 dads 2 moms, etc. Also, I don't think it would be very popular as the newest spouse would have to get along or compete with the other spouses.

No one said it was perfect, it's just better.

Also, your argument is all fine and good in the U.S. but what about those countries that aren't any better than the middle ages.

They already have harems. India, the Middle-East, Africa... China is trying to dig itself out of it's pit of darkness, but they sure could benefit from polygamy since they drowned a shitload of little baby girls not too long ago.

Unless you count in the "caretaker" who has to take care of 10 kids all of whom receive less attention from their parents which they deserve.

you mean the stay-at-home mom? Or dad? Which is already a wide-spread system?
Who said anything about 10 kids? Just 2-5 is enough.

I'm not assuming women are dead weight, I'm saying some societies make them that way.

well not ours

Yet as stated before monogamy was probably best for the children.

you can't know that since we've never had polygamy in our society.

It's sounding like you want free love, I'm ok with that.

we already have free love. you can go and have sex with as many people as you possibly can.

I would like to know that it won't have any adverse effect on any children brought into the mix.

Nothing could possibly suggest that 3 parents would do less of a good parenting job than 2 parents.

Systematic, eugenic polygamy would reduce the genetic diversity of humankind. I don't think it's possible that it could create perfect superhumans that would survive all possible threats to humanity. There are very few traits that have absolute survival value in evolution and usually adopting one trait means a trade-off from another. For instance, people with high levels of testosterone can become stronger, but they're also probably more likely to become mean assholes who like to pick fights (possibly leading to an early death). People with sickle-cell disease are likely to die at around 40 years of age, but it provides protection against malaria, which is likely to kill you before you turn 20, in Sub-Saharan Africa. It isn't hard to believe that even the most retarded people could survive under some condition that the rest of us can't. Cockroaches are infinitely more retarded than humans, but guess which species is going to survive a nuclear holocaust? (Not saying that retarded humans would, though.)

It's true, though, that polygamy can be useful though, particularly in males. Women are the ones that become pregnant, they can only bring one child (or twins) into the world per year or so. Men, on the other hand, could have an unlimited amount of offspring on the way. For that reason, men have to compete for the right to reproduce. It explains also why men with multiple sex partners are considered "playahs" and women with similar sexual activity are commonly referred to as sluts. Polygamy for women is not beneficial, and we've evolved to hate it, even if it seems hypocritical. It's important that we let the competition for reproduction occur naturally, though. It would not be right to force people to commit a genetic suicide by some kind of law, when the urge to continue your gene pool is the most powerful instinct in nature.

At 3/2/08 01:58 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/2/08 01:08 AM, Lindione wrote:

People have a natural urge to have their own genes survive

Prove it.

Gene is the primary unit of life. Gene seeks to reproduce, and live on, even at the cost of the individual. Therefore, members of the family tend to look after each other. Take a look at ant colonies. They're probably the most functioning societies in all of animal kingdom. Every individual cares only for the survival of the colony, they work relentlessly to keep it alive, even if it means sacrificing themselves. Ants (and some other insects) seem like the most altruistic beings, it's like a communist utopia that runs absolutely perfectly... truly a freak of nature. Ants' behaviour would be considered most unnatural, if it wasn't for one thing: all the ants of one colony are sisters to each other, born from the same queen. They're simply helping the colony to keep their own gene pool alive.

In humans, I've heard two explanations for the concept of having friends. One, which was already brought up, is reciprocal altruism. You need people to look after you, and in return, you look after them. ("The hunter needs a spear and the smith needs meat." The friendship of the two benefits them both.) The second explanation is in our Darwinian past, when humans lived in societies with no less than 150 people or so. The people you met were likely to be more or less related to you. You grew up with a group of people that were your brothers, sisters, cousins and second cousins -- and there probably were quite many of them. As a result, we evolved to form a bond with people that live close to us, from childhood to adulthood, to help our relatives succeed in life, against rival tribes. It only took some thousands of years from tribal to societies to develop into the modern social structure of humankind, hence why the instinct to have friends is still present in us. We sort of think them as our cousins -- not consciously, but our genes do. It's a "Darwinian misfiring", which are rather common in humans as well as elsewhere in the nature. However, even though evolution makes mistakes like that, these mistakes are not necessarily unfortunate.

For example, consider that you are in a room together with a mind-blowingly hot, naked woman, who happens to be infertile. Knowing that, do you want to fuck her any less? Of course not. Your genes and your instincts have no way of knowing that you can't reproduce by having sex with her. Similarly, if you adopt a child, your genes will probably begin to think that the child is really yours as you raise him, play with him and teach him your values.

At 3/3/08 08:17 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Systematic, eugenic polygamy would reduce the genetic diversity of humankind.

no, that's crazy. There's six billion humans on earth who all come from a much, much smaller ancestor pool.

I don't think it's possible that it could create perfect superhumans that would survive all possible threats to humanity.

that's not the point, so why cares?

but guess which species is going to survive a nuclear holocaust? (Not saying that retarded humans would,

wow who gives a shit about the hypothetic nightmare scenario where suddenly some disease will pop out of nowhere and wipe out everyone who didn't have sex with "Greg the balding loser" 50 generations ago.

It would not be right to force people to commit a genetic suicide by some kind of law, when the urge to continue your gene pool is the most powerful instinct in nature.

Wow I'm sorry if you're too primitive to be able to put a condom on your dick.
It's weird, I heard that some people don't even want kids. Holy fuck I guess I just proved you wrong.
The goal of polygamy is two folds:
1- everyone has sex
2-everyone has better kids overall

At 3/2/08 01:58 AM, poxpower wrote:

In humans, I've heard two explanations for the concept of having friends. One, which was already brought up, is reciprocal altruism.

see there you go again.
It's pretty fucking easy to figure out why you'd want friends. You don't need some bullshit "theories", and it's just as easy to figure out dozens of non-genetic reasons to have a family.

Do I REALLY have to make a list or something?
:O

At 3/3/08 12:45 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/3/08 08:17 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Systematic, eugenic polygamy would reduce the genetic diversity of humankind.

no, that's crazy. There's six billion humans on earth who all come from a much, much smaller ancestor pool.

We got lucky. There are a million things that could have wiped us out at once in our early stage in Africa (just a single landslide that would block the entrance of a cave, and none of us would exist now), now the number of threats that can cause human extinction is a tiny fraction of it. Of course, technological advancement has had a huge merit in protecting humankind, but mostly we are safe due to the fact that we are so diverse and widespread.

I don't think it's possible that it could create perfect superhumans that would survive all possible threats to humanity.

that's not the point, so why cares?
wow who gives a shit about the hypothetic nightmare scenario where suddenly some disease will pop out of nowhere and wipe out everyone who didn't have sex with "Greg the balding loser" 50 generations ago.

Well, I understand now. Your idea never was to establish a humankind that will survive the impending threats and live on for thousands of years more, you just wanted a cool, fun society where everyone can have lots of sex. It doesn't explain why you want people to have only superchildren, though, unless it's part of the coolness that every couple can say "holy shit our (adopted) child is a genius".

It would not be right to force people to commit a genetic suicide by some kind of law, when the urge to continue your gene pool is the most powerful instinct in nature.

Wow I'm sorry if you're too primitive to be able to put a condom on your dick.
It's weird, I heard that some people don't even want kids. Holy fuck I guess I just proved you wrong.

My point was that those people who do want to have children, should not be forbidden from it, if they find someone to have them with. Sexual selection is powerful enough on its own to prevent the "undesirable" people from reproducing -- of course, which traits are more desirable than others, varies with the environment.

Obviously not everyone wants to have children. Some people even decline from ever having sex. Most people still want to have sex, and most want to have their own kids. Even if you make a conscious decision not to have them, I'm quite sure the urge is still present, you're only fighting against it, because you've somehow got the impression that it's a good idea.

Humans can be impressionable to ideas that work against them, in the genetic sense. It's the negative side-effect of our ability to produce culture and exchange ideas. Once launched, some ideas can spread virtually on their own, like a virus (e.g suicide bombings, school shootings and Numa Numa). Confirmed bachelors and devoted careerwomen, as well as Buddhist monks living in permanent celibacy are victims of similar viruses. I think it might be a good thing that we're able to loosen the chains of biological evolution, and give room for cultural evolution, but I honestly don't think that genetically self-destructive behaviour patterns have a very long future ahead.

The goal of polygamy is two folds:
1- everyone has sex
2-everyone has better kids overall

Most people would still want to have their own kids. Adopting children can satisfy your parental instincts, to an extent, but basically, it's only fooling your genes. It's like having to settle for masturbation when you really just want to have sex.

Suppose we one day decide that contraception is mandatory for every intercourse (or even that we're automatically sterilized at birth; men would still produce sperm and women eggs, but insemination would be impossible during sex), and children are only to be artificially inseminated and fetuses will be grown to babies in labs. I admit, it would seem like an awesome idea. The babies' living conditions in future science labs might be a lot better than those in a woman's uterus. You could have all the sex you want, and it would be completely separate from our reproduction. However, our desire to have sex and the pleasure we get from it would deteriorate over time. Sex would just become an energy-consuming activity that can cause choking or heart attack :o

can someone plz explain the meaning of all this eg whats dawrinism.

At 3/4/08 08:45 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

but mostly we are safe due to the fact that we are so diverse and widespread.

I'm pretty sure our genetic diversity accounts for like 0.0001% of our survival rate while breeding healthy individuals would probably boost it by quite a bit, first and foremost by eliminating lots of birth defects.

It doesn't explain why you want people to have only superchildren, though

It's just better for everyone. Less handicaps, less morons, less ugly people. All good. Who doesn't want to be less handicapped, smarter and better-looking?? For free too!

My point was that those people who do want to have children, should not be forbidden from it,

they wouldn't be.

Once launched, some ideas can spread virtually on their own, like a virus (e.g suicide bombings, school shootings and Numa Numa).

hey don't start talking about religions now

Confirmed bachelors and devoted careerwomen, as well as Buddhist monks living in permanent celibacy are victims of similar viruses.

I'm sure they'd appreciate you saying they have a virus in their brain haha.

It's like having to settle for masturbation when you really just want to have sex.

That's like saying people who adopt kids resent them for the rest of their lives. It's only our mindset that it's great to have YOUR OWN kids, I bet you 5 bajillion dollars that we can change it.

However, our desire to have sex and the pleasure we get from it would deteriorate over time.

We've been going for 1 million years and still going strong.
I'm pretty sure people today don't have sex to have kids. They just want to try it, sometimes they like it so much they dedicate their lives to it, and sometimes they get married and it gets boring so they stop and have blue balls/eggs and live miserably.
djfkasdf

That's like, social darwinism! Congratz!

At 3/4/08 03:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

but mostly we are safe due to the fact that we are so diverse and widespread.

I'm pretty sure our genetic diversity accounts for like 0.0001% of our survival rate

http://cnx.org/content/m12158/latest/

The presence of unique genetic characteristics distinguishes members of a given population from those of any other population. Large populations will usually have a greater diversity of alleles compared to small populations. This diversity of alleles indicates a greater potential for the evolution of new combinations of genes and, subsequently, a greater capacity for evolutionary adaptation to different environmental conditions. In small populations, the individuals are likely to be genetically, anatomically, and physiologically more homogeneous than in larger populations and less able to adapt to different environmental conditions (see Small population phenomena). Genetic diversity is, therefore, a key component for conservation efforts associated with population management.

I think it's safe to say its importance is much greater than 0.0001%.

while breeding healthy individuals would probably boost it by quite a bit, first and foremost by eliminating lots of birth defects.

But if those healthy individuals are too homogeneous, it's more likely that there's going to exist breeding where two recessive, previously totally unknown alleles form a gene that can cause a genetic disease that never existed before. And if more and more people are bred the same way, soon everyone will have two copies of the dangerous allele. Your idea would only work if we had complete mapping of the human DNA, and we knew exactly the effects of every single gene. We're very far from that at the present.

Genetic diversity, while it appears to make a lot of evolutionary mistakes, makes sure that our population will produce a majority of healthy children (or at least enough of them).

It's difficult to say whether our superlative qualities are more important than our genetic diversity, but I would bet my money on the latter. I couldn't find any sources on the exact question, but I'm sure the subject is debated even among qualified scientists.

My point was that those people who do want to have children, should not be forbidden from it,

they wouldn't be.

Then how is your utopia any different from our society? It isn't illegal to have children with multiple partners. Nor is it illegal not to fuck a retard.

It's like having to settle for masturbation when you really just want to have sex.

That's like saying people who adopt kids resent them for the rest of their lives.

It's always just the next best thing. I don't think that adopting parents are as depressed as chronic masturbaters, but most infertile couples settle for adoption only when they realize they can't have children of their own.

It's only our mindset that it's great to have YOUR OWN kids, I bet you 5 bajillion dollars that we can change it.

I think it's deeper than that, it's in our instincts. But yes, you could change it. Using the aforementioned mind viruses. We can easily make people kill themselves, too. (Oops religion again.)

However, our desire to have sex and the pleasure we get from it would deteriorate over time.

We've been going for 1 million years and still going strong.
I'm pretty sure people today don't have sex to have kids. They just want to try it, sometimes they like it so much they dedicate their lives to it, and sometimes they get married and it gets boring so they stop and have blue balls/eggs and live miserably.
djfkasdf

It's true that the instinct to have sex is very strong, old and primitive, so it would take a very long time to get rid of it (if we wanted to). But if it no longer had any reproduction value, this would inevitably happen.

At 3/1/08 04:48 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

What are you going to do about drinking?
I know for a fact, girls get better looking when your horny & drunk ! ! !
You'll do stuff drunk that you probably would think twice about sober, I know I have & so have my friends.

There is that point pox! I mean I've had friends that are female and very attractive...some I got some I did not...but I've been out with all of them...watched them get drunk and go home with some total goober, I mean like two pens short of a full pocket protector goober. What s your plan to combat that? I see your reasoning, and it is truly sound. But there are some gaps to fill in. I mean like wide smell of the ocean gaps here. the most damaging being the "get the girl drunk" strategy.. would that then be illegal in this utopian society of which you speak?

Also what about addressing the ugly chick factor? Wouldl we just give them all "Maroon 5" tickets then accidentally lean on the C4 detonation plunger? how do we handle that aspect of it all?

Many things to consider here

sorry to post back to back (damned inability to edit!) but there also is the HUGE problem..and I mean HUGE!

How do you keep uglies from bumpin uglies? That temptation would undoubtedly arise how would you keep the ugly peoples of the world standing on opposite sides of the gym? You know like in every 80s movie that involved a dance of somekind?

Speaking scientifically, if a smaller number of men had children with the same amount of women, there would be less of a likelihood of genes mixing and a greater likelihood of slowed evolution.

All this according to Darwin himself.

At 3/5/08 09:16 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

I think it's safe to say its importance is much greater than 0.0001%.

What was that article about? Frogs?
haha ridiculous.

But if those healthy individuals are too homogeneous

6 billion people on earth? Not a fucking chance. There's a way better chance that half of us will die because of a massive war than some hypothetical "disease" that "might" arise and that we "might" not be able to overcome in the future given our ever-increasing knowledge.

Knowing we thoughed-out hundreds of thousands of year with a tiny pool, that argument is ridiculously weak.

Then how is your utopia any different from our society? It isn't illegal to have children with multiple partners. Nor is it illegal not to fuck a retard.

Right now it's not legal to mary multiple people, and it's heavily frowned upon, as is having sex while married. Sleeping around is not a value we currently have ( even though we do it "in secret") and it stems from ancient religious roots.

but most infertile couples settle for adoption only when they realize they can't have children of their own.

Yeah cause it costs a huge load of money. Making a baby the normal way is free.

I think it's deeper than that, it's in our instincts.

It's our instinct to be polygamous and we've changed it easily enough, so I win.
hurray.

It's true that the instinct to have sex is very strong, old and primitive, so it would take a very long time to get rid of it (if we wanted to).
But if it no longer had any reproduction value, this would inevitably happen.

No it happens because people get bored with it. Young people will always want to have sex, then they will get older and uglier and less horny.That's how it goes.
I can't imagine a whole society completely getting "bored" with having sex, but it would still be easy enough to have a society where people don't want to have sex. Just scare the young boys and girls all they lives about it like religious people used to do.
Worked well enough.

At 3/5/08 03:33 PM, JayBirdSlim wrote:

What s your plan to combat that?

There is none. I just assume that over time there will be a thinning of the uglies and defective if we change our ways.

how do we handle that aspect of it all?

Just like we do now: we avoid them.

At 3/5/08 03:44 PM, JayBirdSlim wrote:

How do you keep uglies from bumpin uglies?

You can't. Like you can't prevent mexicans from being fucking morons and having 15 kids even though they make 2 bucks per day. Like you can't prevent african guys from sleeping around without condoms spreading their AIDs.
Unfortunately for them, their way of life is really stupid and destroying them so if they want to have a better society, like ours, they'll have to change and be like us.

Anyways, it's harder and harder to be truly ugly in this world. If you have all your teeth and you're somewhat athletic, dress alright, that's already pretty decent. Ugliness mostly comes about from fatness.

At 3/5/08 04:02 PM, Christopherr wrote: Speaking scientifically, if a smaller number of men had children with the same amount of women, there would be less of a likelihood of genes mixing and a greater likelihood of slowed evolution.

Who gives a shit about evolution?
I'm done evolving. In fact who cares about this? I'll be long dead before any of this would produce any changes.

Polygamy would be fine as long as it is one breeder and several mates that are just there for pleasure; assuming they wear condoms and don't spread STD's. However it won't work if you are talking about everyone breeds because it would cause a population explosion, which would cause more people to chase the same amount of goods, which would cause inflation, which would cause economies to fall apart or at least the stanard of living would fall.

: 3

At 3/5/08 11:37 PM, poxpower wrote: What was that article about? Frogs?
haha ridiculous.

Any species or population in general. Are humans really that much above nature that it doesn't apply to us?

Knowing we thoughed-out hundreds of thousands of year with a tiny pool, that argument is ridiculously weak.

I didn't say it's impossible for a smaller, less varied population to survive, it's just harder. Otherwise, new species would never emerge, because they all have to start with the smallest possible population. Hell, people probably had to fuck their cousins and sisters at one point, but they simply produced so many children that it didn't matter if 75% of them were born without legs. You just dumped them somewhere.

This is something that I'm not going to believe with out a source -- that genetic diversity has been insignificant in the survival of humankind.

Then how is your utopia any different from our society? It isn't illegal to have children with multiple partners. Nor is it illegal not to fuck a retard.

Right now it's not legal to mary multiple people, and it's heavily frowned upon, as is having sex while married. Sleeping around is not a value we currently have ( even though we do it "in secret") and it stems from ancient religious roots.

I think it stems from jealousy. Men want to wander off to have sex with more women, but sometimes they'd rather stay home to make sure no one fucks their wife. If the man's wife had children with multiple partners, the ones that are his would have a smaller chance of surviving, because they would have to share food with the strangers' children. In particular, you'll stay home if you realize you have no chance for competing for additional brides, just to make sure that the children you already have will survive. In prehistoric societies, anyway. Also, women don't want their husbands to leave them, because it would be harder for her to raise the children alone.

But religion has been a useful tool in making monogamy the norm, just like it excels in implementing any rules that simply "must be obeyed, no matter what". Basically, the original root of monogamy is jealousy, and the role of religion is to eliminate the need to explain it. It makes the rules look more noble if you think they come from God rather than your own primitive instincts of jealousy.

Yeah cause it costs a huge load of money. Making a baby the normal way is free.

How much do you have to pay to adopt a child? I can't imagine a fresh married couple on their honeymoon talking about adopting a child (as a first alternative), no matter how cheap or free it would be, if they're both perfectly capable of having their own children.

No it happens because people get bored with it. Young people will always want to have sex, then they will get older and uglier and less horny.That's how it goes.
I can't imagine a whole society completely getting "bored" with having sex

Sex gives us pleasure because it's been the only way to reproduce until a few decades ago. That's just how we've evolved. If we no longer could reproduce by having sex, it would still continue to entertain us for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but eventually wieners would start to get smaller and more flaccid and vaginas would start to cave in to avoid infections. I can easily imagine that happening, but I know it would suck... imagine your penis being as useless as your appendix.

it would be a great idea, not only because of better, stronger children, but if only the best men would mate with the best women, the world population would decrease with 99%, and that's great because all problems in modern-day world are caused by over-population (think of war, water-food shortage, some would say greenhouse effect, all tho, it's not proved the greenhouse effect is caused by men) but anyways, i agree with you.

At 3/5/08 11:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

There is none. I just assume that over time there will be a thinning of the uglies and defective if we change our ways.

HOGWASH! I refuse to believe it. Perhaps as an addendum or earmark to your proposal we also allocate a healthy dose of financial backing to various alcohol providers to research and produce replacement beverages, maintaining current flavor and general effects, with on small change... some sort of additive that would then make people appear "uglier" the more of the liquid is in your system?

I mean come on we live in the 21st century... science HAS to be able to produce such an effect. WE CAN CLONE SHEEP FOR CHRIST SAKE!

Actually polygamy wouldn't be the best guarantee for furthering human evolution in the modern world. Let's face it, a hell of a lot of women would flock to the most successful man, i.e. with the most money. Having lots of money is no guarantee of a good overall picture of health. It's most likely that those with loads of money will be of high intelligence (Particularly in the case of businessmen), but plenty of them are no physically superior than the poor, and if they are it's often more down to lifestyle than genetics. A more efficient way of furthering human evolution would be probably be to open up sperm banks (Across the world for greater genetic diversity). Instead of the current system where pretty much anyone can donate, you could select fewer, higher paid donors - those with the best overall set of traits such as intelligence, athleticism, disease resistance, lifespan, eyesight, ect. Women in existing relationships could easily use that sperm. Then you'd be able to further human evolution in a much more efficient way than the polygamy suggestion, all while maintaining the traditional monogamous relationships.

Of course, some may say this whole thing is a step down the slippery slope to nazi eugenics....

At 3/1/08 04:11 PM, poxpower wrote: Not really. Hot guys would just get to have sex with any women and it would be alright even if they're married or whatever.

Problem is, your probobly not one of those few. And besides, the world has a huge population, polygamy would be bad for over populations sake.

Now, polyandery would be more likly, it is when on women has many husbands, usualy the husbands are brothers so resources arnt split between men and nobody has sufficiant money.

It would make sence, otherwise the world population would get so large nobody would be happy with what they got.