The real reason to prefer monogamy is that most cultures/societies have been polygynous, but the smaller number of monogamous ones were the winners in the contest of cultural group selection*.
Does that mean I should prefer to have the flu rather than not, because the most successful societies have had endemic flus?
I'm a committed monogamist by the way, happily married with kids, I just think we should query the issue/ought distinction here; the evolutionary winner is not necessarily the one that best promotes human flourishing
No, but it means you shouldn't live in a society without endemic flus, if societies with endemic flus exist, because your society is gonna get wiped out the moment the borders open.
I'll accept the nuance and critique of the analogy.
To clarify your views here, are you saying:
1) The societies that are the most 'successful' (in a taking over the world sense) are *necessarily* the societies that best promote human flourishing; or
2) We should not value individual human flourishing, but should instead value societal success/greatness/replication?
Really I'm just questioning your flu analogy rather than agreeing with the great-grandparent post.
I would say that (1), but with the causation reversed; human flourishing is more likely to occur in a society which are successful in a taking-over-the-world sense. And monogamy certainly seems to be pretty good for making a society that's successful in the taking-over-the-world sense.
- Circumstances have changed a lot. There is no reason to assume that norms that evolved when reliable contraception and paternity tests didn't exist, infant mortality was high, most work was physical (so women had a significant disadvantage), and the economy often barely produced enough for subsistence, are optimal today. (Cf. we didn't biologically evolve to wear clothes, but we had to start wearing them when we moved to colder climates than we were adapted to.)
- The sample is small, and heavily confounded. In particular, if we're talking about the West's success in the last few centuries, it's a sample size of 1, and it may have been caused by any of the various differences between it and other civilizations.
- If by success we mean surviving and multiplying (which is fitting if we're talking about a sort of evolution), Islam is doing pretty well for itself. In fact, the early Islamic conquests were some of the fastest, widest conquests having long-lasting cultural effects. If by success we mean prospering and thriving, right now many of the most prosperous societies are among the ones that are the most liberal about sexual morality. I'm not saying that sexual libertinism causes prosperity (if anything, the causation goes in the opposite direction)—but that just drives home the point that cause and effect are hard to disentangle, causation in a particular direction doesn't follow from correlation.
Men have a physical advantage in plough agriculture, not so much in hoe agriculture. In the latter, men tried to collect many more wives for economic reasons.
Neandertals lived in much colder areas than humans originally evolved in, and they didn't seem to have sewing needles, instead wearing animal hides. The late Judith Harris theorized that they were still hairy, and that modern humans mostly ate them as a result: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11509
Monogamy is not just a feature of the west. Per Jack Goody, "monogamy is part of a cultural complex found in the broad swath of Eurasian societies from Japan to Ireland that practice social monogamy, sexual monogamy and dowry", linked to intensive plough agriculture.
Even Islam constrains the number of wives to four, which is less polygynous than the pre-Islamic norms of the area in which it arose (monogamy was more of a Roman thing).
Polygamous marriage is still not legal in the liberal societies you're referring to. And within them the cultures which appear capable of maintaining above-replacement fertility are those like the Amish & ultra-orthodox Jews.
The real reason to prefer monogamy is that most cultures/societies have been polygynous, but the smaller number of monogamous ones were the winners in the contest of cultural group selection*.
* https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/07/addendum-to-enormous-nutshell-competing-selectors/
Does that mean I should prefer to have the flu rather than not, because the most successful societies have had endemic flus?
I'm a committed monogamist by the way, happily married with kids, I just think we should query the issue/ought distinction here; the evolutionary winner is not necessarily the one that best promotes human flourishing
No, but it means you shouldn't live in a society without endemic flus, if societies with endemic flus exist, because your society is gonna get wiped out the moment the borders open.
But maybe this analogy isn't the best.
I'll accept the nuance and critique of the analogy.
To clarify your views here, are you saying:
1) The societies that are the most 'successful' (in a taking over the world sense) are *necessarily* the societies that best promote human flourishing; or
2) We should not value individual human flourishing, but should instead value societal success/greatness/replication?
Really I'm just questioning your flu analogy rather than agreeing with the great-grandparent post.
I would say that (1), but with the causation reversed; human flourishing is more likely to occur in a society which are successful in a taking-over-the-world sense. And monogamy certainly seems to be pretty good for making a society that's successful in the taking-over-the-world sense.
My objections to this kind of argument:
- Circumstances have changed a lot. There is no reason to assume that norms that evolved when reliable contraception and paternity tests didn't exist, infant mortality was high, most work was physical (so women had a significant disadvantage), and the economy often barely produced enough for subsistence, are optimal today. (Cf. we didn't biologically evolve to wear clothes, but we had to start wearing them when we moved to colder climates than we were adapted to.)
- The sample is small, and heavily confounded. In particular, if we're talking about the West's success in the last few centuries, it's a sample size of 1, and it may have been caused by any of the various differences between it and other civilizations.
- If by success we mean surviving and multiplying (which is fitting if we're talking about a sort of evolution), Islam is doing pretty well for itself. In fact, the early Islamic conquests were some of the fastest, widest conquests having long-lasting cultural effects. If by success we mean prospering and thriving, right now many of the most prosperous societies are among the ones that are the most liberal about sexual morality. I'm not saying that sexual libertinism causes prosperity (if anything, the causation goes in the opposite direction)—but that just drives home the point that cause and effect are hard to disentangle, causation in a particular direction doesn't follow from correlation.
Men have a physical advantage in plough agriculture, not so much in hoe agriculture. In the latter, men tried to collect many more wives for economic reasons.
Neandertals lived in much colder areas than humans originally evolved in, and they didn't seem to have sewing needles, instead wearing animal hides. The late Judith Harris theorized that they were still hairy, and that modern humans mostly ate them as a result: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11509
Monogamy is not just a feature of the west. Per Jack Goody, "monogamy is part of a cultural complex found in the broad swath of Eurasian societies from Japan to Ireland that practice social monogamy, sexual monogamy and dowry", linked to intensive plough agriculture.
Even Islam constrains the number of wives to four, which is less polygynous than the pre-Islamic norms of the area in which it arose (monogamy was more of a Roman thing).
Polygamous marriage is still not legal in the liberal societies you're referring to. And within them the cultures which appear capable of maintaining above-replacement fertility are those like the Amish & ultra-orthodox Jews.