The monogamy instinct within humans

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One groups of genetic hardware emulations required by the mind/brain to support promiscuity are associated with STD's. These result from certain reproductive behavior and increase in odds as we shift to increasing promiscuity.

STD's are merely tiny little animals who found a particular niche very handy and evolved to fit into it very nicely, thank you very much. Which, of course, means that if species of organisms have evolved to fit a niche (in this case, human reproductive parts) it clearly means than humans are not monogamous. And that humans have not been monogamous for a long, long time.

Originally Posted by HydorgenBond

Most humans do not have natural genetic hardware to generate the software emulation within the immune system to deal with these diseases, especially AIDS. Science, which is mind/brain has to create hardware emulation (medicines) to extend the natural genetic immune system to deal with these.

If we took away all such hardware emulation associated with the natural genetic immune system, as well as mind/brain prevention behavior not in genetics, monogamy may not even notice the difference, since it does not require as much hardware support. Promiscuity on the other hand, which has a higher hardware emulation requirement would creates a paradox for itself.

Okay, I think I'm following what you're saying, what with all these metaphors and such, but the mere existence of STDs should be enough evidence to show that there is no such thing as a "monogamy instinct".

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Human promiscuity, although increasing genetic diversity, which is good for genetics, will also create STD's, which have the potential to make the same healthy genetic specimens sickly, due to negative hardware emulation created by the STD's. The same negative hardware emulation can also be passed on to the unborn and undermine the natural genetic advantages of the offspring stemming from the induce genetic diversity.

First off, human promiscuity will not create STDs. It will, however, create an environment for the trasnmission of existing STDs.
Second, I think you missed me a bit with the metaphors there. Or I'm just a bit slow today.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Monogamy is not purely genetic instinct,

Monogamy is not an instinct at all. At best, monogamy is learned behaviour - a cultural thing. And the prevalence of STDs should show that humans don't seem to give a rip about learned behaviour either, when it comes to matters of T&A.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

However, because it has a lower emulation requirement, it is closer to natural, at least for humans.

How on earth can you reach this conclusion?

Consider the following: There is a gene for monogamy. There is a gene for polygamy. Which one, after a thousand generations, would you think have won?

If there were such genes (which there aren't), then it should be glaringly obvious that the poligamous gene would be closer to the "natural" state, because it would leave the most offspring and spread through the genepool much quicker and much more efficiently.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

This may be different for other animals, who don't have the same level of willful mind/brain influence on genetic hardware and software emulation to create unbalanced genetic cycles that need additional brain/mind requirement.

Sex (the maker and breaker of which genes get to the next generation) don't give a hoot about will or brain influence. Sex, sex signals, the visual sex signals, the smelling of pheromones, all of these things speak directly to the R-complex in your brain. It speaks to your inner reptile, and there is very little the rest of your brain can do about it once the R-complex gets all jiggy 'n stuff. On the instinct to have sex when all the parameters are filled, humans differ very little from, say, chickens.

I have to say that I'm beginning to agree with InfiniteNow. I've given you leeway from the start, and have defended your side as you develop your argument. But you'll have to come with better proof than mere analogies and metaphors to explain something that clearly doesn't exist. Otherwise it's merely your interpretation, and speculation thereupon. Else, it's merely a Strange Claim, indeed.

I do agree with you in the view that there is much pressure on the individual to assume that he is monogamous, and that particular individual might feel very guilty after an extramarital copulation, but that shame and guilt and the entire experience of human "monogamy" is 100% learned, i.e. cultural.

If you insist on claiming that there is a particular gene for monogamy, then you should back it up with proof. Else, I'll agree with InfiniteNow for moving this thread to Strange Claims.

[Turtle]

If a young American boy grows up humping his Aunty's boots in the closet, then he will grow up to have an enormous unit, become a famous cartoonist, marry a woman, & then move to France to retire and live monogamously. It is the genetic predisposition to closet use that is at the root of monogomy in humans.

reference

[lawcat]

Monogamy is about loyalty. Everyone wants it, but none want to give it. Monogamy is unnatural and imposed by law, which is also unnatural; but, the option is polygamy, and polygamy is chaos.