Can it be argued then that romantic love transcends biology in some ways?Is it really accurate to say romantic relationships are solely based upon evolutionary theory?
Evolutionary theory is almost a tautology.
';A trait that enhances a lifeforms ability to replicate gets replicated.';
There is no 'transcendence' from this.
The loving man expends great effort to provide for %26amp; protect his loved offspring thus enhancing his genetic survival.
But same man may also spread his seed, to unloved %26amp; unprotected women - though the chances of the unloved children surviving is lower, this promiscuity costs him very little.
The ratio of 'effort to offspring' remains high, especially if some moronic Liberal starts mailing taxpayer dollars to unwed mothers.
So why do men commit at all? Well there's a quality issue. To have smart children men must mate with smart women %26amp; smart women are reluctant to mate with non committal men.
Hence smart men must needs embrace commitment if they are to embrace smart women.
AH BUT there ever remains those silly women, willing to risk the commitlessness of single motherhood.
And the easier Society makes their lives,
the lower the risk,
the more there will be,
%26amp; the more 'profitable' male promiscuity becomes.
So no. In men, Love %26amp; Promiscuity do not Darwinistically contradict.
Romantic love remains the product, not the transcendence, of biology.Is it really accurate to say romantic relationships are solely based upon evolutionary theory?
I don't believe that romantic relationships are solely based upon evolutionary theory. Without writing a massive missive here, my thoughts are these:
People who mutually do not desire to have children still seek out and enjoy lasting, meaningful relationships.
Relationships do not fizzle after progeny have been birthed and raised. There are plenty of happily married older couples whose children (if there are any) are fully grown and living out on their own. The prerogative to procreate has disappeared, but the relationship is still strong.
Put into the most basic of terms, people still separate 'one-nighters' from 'keepers' (I'm simplifying/generalizing this a lot, so pardon me), proving that sexual imperative and romance/love are also separate.
That's just my opinion, though. =)
we do not as of yet know everything about the human mind but most romantic things have or had some practical function in the propagation of the species. now there is a line and it is not clear. but it takes more than one person to raise a child well. it is usually best if one is female and the other is male. as it gives the child prospective. men want to take care of their children. they have fatherly instincts just as women have motherly ones. men fall in love so that their children have a father around to help raise them. but we do not really know how much of this is civilization effecting our thinking or actual primal nature.
we do not know why we do all the thing we do or feel what we feel. the mind is very complicated. the brain just a little bit less.
You're right. It seems to me lust would overthrow love. Actually, I don't think we would even have evolved with the emotion of love for this reason. In an evolutionary worldview, it is a bad mutation that should have been weeded out so we can reproduce faster and more efficiently. Keep studying and maybe you will find an answer. Another problem is that love and thought would have to be reduced to motion in the brain, but this is a whole different question.
People live and try to explain and know about everything. They do this simply out of curiosity, to prevent, to explain, to plain know. Sometimes though, there are just things that we cannot explain. Sometimes science just doesn't feel right.
Personally, it has never been a belief of mine to mix something as analytical as science with something as irrationally beautiful as love.
Romantic love tends to have us controlling our natural instincts to breed not with just anyone, but with a specific person we have chosen. This lends itself to adopting a personal sense of morality and fidelity to your chosen partner. Therefore it has transcended biological instincts.
No. Romantic love defined as simply as a means of procreation is disproved by this:
If love is procreation what about the people who are disgusted on girls, love works of art and are abstaining from sex?
Romantic love is in fact an evolutionary adaption that was (and still is) useful for selecting mates. It sprouts from one of our most primitive urges, lust. Other than that, it's just survival in numbers.
Here's a link to video that answers your question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEdHz0eIp鈥?/a> It's pretty funny.
That's not at all what evolutionary psychology tells us.
No. A romantic relationship should be first created, then evolve
Assuming that evolutionary theory is valid, the value of ';survival of the fittest'; cannot point to ';survival of the most prolific';. ';Survival of the fittest'; points to genetically driven selective breeding. Indiscriminant breeding weakens the gene pool by diversifying it (a perfect example being the Dingo, a wild dog in the Australian outback that resulted in the genetic averaging of quite a variety of selectively bred dogs, all of which have regressed back to the average, that being pretty much a wolf, arguably more competitive, but certainly less evolved). Promiscuity is not selective breeding.
Truth is threefold:
Romantic love does not serve the need to procreate. Rape does. Conflict and murder does. That's how wolves and elephants and lions and bison and so many others do it. The strongest male defeats the lead male and takes over the group. When he gets older, he gets challenged and beat up and a younger, stronger male steps in. Love has nothing to do with this. This is not selective. It is dominant. The male does not breed selectively with the strongest females. He breeds with all of them. This is averaging.
Promiscuity presented in the same context is contradictory, as you point out, which devalues the ';science'; of both evolution and psychology. The above scenario of conflict plays a greater role. The battle is not for life, it is for fun or wealth or name or something that one male wins at while others fail. It is neither selective, nor does it promote improved offspring.
DNA does not have the capacity to direct behavior. This is one of the failings of the assumptions made by Darwin. DNA determines tissues. Behavior comes from somewhere else.
';Evolutionary Psychology'; is an attempt to rationalize a failed medical model by phrasing it within the context of a weak scientific model. Evolution has occurred, no doubt. Survival of the fittest is a good postulate. But observed behaviors contradict the premise. And no amount of biochemical flim flam will ever demonstrate behavior as an inherited trait. Behavior is learned. Sex is driven biochemically. Selective sex is meaningless within the context of DNA. Learning is not inherited.
Love is not biological. Love encourages the weaker organism to enjoy, to be safe, to procreate. Love gives. Nature takes. Love is learned.
Evolutionary theory states that a man wants to spread his seed with as many women as possible. It also states that women are more picky with men because they want a strong man who will protect them and their kids. According to the theory, women don't enjoy sex as much as guys and only want kids.
I do not think that evolutionary theory is the basis of romantic relationships. Not at all. It may be true to some extent, but other factors also play a role. Romantic love does transcend biology.
1. All men want different things and all women want different things. Are all men going to cheat? No. Are all men unemotional? No. Are all women into bad boys? No. Do all women want babies and not enjoy sex? Of course not!
2. Some people claim that the reason why women want a man with a good job is so that he will take care of her and the babies. That may be true for a lot of women ( though most of them work these days ), but not all women care how much a man makes or how strong he is.
3. Men don't always cheat. Some do cheat... ranging from issues that he may not want to commit or maybe he wants more than one woman. News flash: Men actually fall in love. Not all are going to leave their wives/girlfriends when she gets pregnant. A lot of men make good and caring dads.
4. The idea that many women put on make up and dress in expensive clothing ( sometimes men don't notice how much hours she puts into her looks, which I think is kind of funny, actually ) is to attract men. That may be true in a lot of cases. Why do some men think that women only care about their money? Some men want to buy women things only so he can have sex with her or maybe he thinks that is how she will be his girlfriend. Our culture dictates a lot of weird dating rituals and very shallow, too.
5. Gasp: Women like sex as much as men. I know that a lot of girls will tease the boys, which I don't always like as much. They're just leading the guys on.
Honestly, I don't like a lot of the ';games'; in love and I think it's superficial.
Some evolutionary theory is right, but a lot of it has to do with the culture we live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment