or hopelessly engrossed in the mindless bullshit of the, heavily manipulated, mass media and “entertainment industry”.
It appears that the “natural state” of human society is the hunter/gatherer culture, they are typically based on familial and extended family ties. Kinship is what binds them together. Although they may mate outside their group, there are often protocols for who moves into whose house or tribe. Marriages may be arranged or not, with or without a dowry. Mating patterns can range from a broad spectrum of normals, being life-long monogamous, serial monogamy, or versions of polygamy such as polygyny with one male with several wives, polyandry with a single female and multiple males, or communities where everybody fornicates with everybody, without jealousy.
For example, in many ancient Amazonian cultures (and currently in a few “primitive” tribes), extramarital sexual affairs were common, these peoples believed that when a woman became pregnant, each of her sexual partners would be part biological father. Sexual promiscuity was considered normal, and therefore acceptable. It was considered bad manners for a man to be jealous of his wife’s other partners, and abnormal for one to not have multiple partners. Cousins were considered preferred sex partners and it was especially rude to deny their sexual advances. Women in these cultures appeared to benefit from this cultural norm because all the “fathers” gave gifts and helped support the child, which in turn increased its chance of survival. Because intertribal warfare was frequent in ancient Amazonia, having multiple fathers reduced the chance that a child might lose all its father figures. The men in these cultures benefitted because they typically formed alliances with co-fathers. This system of multiple paternity reinforced familial ties, especially because brothers often shared wives. This form of multiple parenting was believed to be the norm in approximately 70% of ancient Amazonian cultures [Walker, Finn, Hill; “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010”].
So, in regards to the question, “What is the normal mating pattern for humans?” the answer appears to be somewhere between, “it depends on the society” to, “anything goes.” There are some “recently discovered” modern Amazonian tribes in which the males will leave the village on extended hunts that may last several days, upon their return each male will copulate with each female of the group without apparent jealousy. This would be considered unusual or immoral to many societies today, but perhaps the cure for jealousy, which can be an extremely destructive emotion for both societies and families in our culture, can be cured or completely averted using a “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” philosophy. In both my personal history and in many other cases, I have observed that jealousy can be extremely destructive, with consequences ranging from ruined careers to severe psychological damage to all family members even remotely involved, monetary and legal repercussions, or even murder. The legal concept of marriage, adultery, and divorce can be ruinous in many ways, with consequences lasting a lifetime or even generations. Personally, I feel that in an optimal society there should be no institution of marriage or divorce. Two people should be a “mating couple” only for as long as they each find it to be a positive experience, whether it is for a single sex act, or for life, the decision should belong to each individual to make, with no moral repercussions.
Jealousy, however, I considered to be a biologically adaptive emotion, and therefore natural. Between siblings for example, if a parent were to give food and attention to only one of a set of twins, and the other were to make no demand for attention and sustenance, it would very likely decrease the survival potential of the silent twin. Similarly, if a male allowed his mate to copulate at will, it would decrease his chances of producing a biological heir of his own with that woman. I do not know if there exists a “jealousy advantage” in evolution, but it makes sense that those individuals who attempt at least to enforce sexual faithfulness in their mates would be more likely to have offspring that carry that same jealousy gene. This could be an example of “cultural evolution” where behavioral patterns that become engrained in a society assist in the achievement of a survival advantage to some individuals. There would be, I think, general agreement among geneticists and evolutionary biologists that there appears to be some evolutionary advantage for the occurrence and therefore inheritance of promiscuity in light of the fact that individuals who have children by two or more partners certainly have an increased likelihood of passing on their genes by combining them with the inherited factors of a variety of mates. A method of placing one’s eggs in several baskets as it were. Each different genetic combination increases the likelihood that some of their children might acquire genes that could be beneficial to them in specific environmental situations like disease resistance or enhanced ability to efficiently metabolize certain foods (carbohydrates, dairy products) which may offer them a distinct survival advantage in extreme conditions. But, any emotion or behavior, I contend, natural to animals or not, is capable of being changed through the use of operant conditioning and/or social constraint. Therefore we, as cultural designers, have the ability to form morals, life views, and values in the new society that we might undertake to construct.
We can see that there are distinct evolutionary principles working in both directions in regard to the jealousy-promiscuity spectrum and realize that the combination of jealousy in regards to an individual’s mate coupled with promiscuity on their part might offer the greatest genetic advantage. Our modern societies have evolved a variety of cultures with a great spectrum of traditions, laws, and taboos that regulate this strong drive.
For the three years that I owned a male spider monkey while living in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. I endeavored not to teach him tricks, but to raise him, as much as possible, as an equal family member with my two sons (he was the only one of the boys that wore a leash). We often were intrigued by his “natural” behavior. If we were ever to bring another pet, a kitten in one instance, into the household, petting it and giving it attention, he would absolutely throw a fit. Whistling and squealing shrilly, if he was able, he would tear the newcomer from our grasp, and pushing it away with his foot, he would embrace us making cooing and clucking “love” sounds. Taking up on this jealous display, we would often tease him by showering attention on a stuffed animal toy to his great protest. When we approached across the room to where the toy was finally within reach, straining against his leash, he would snatch the toy from our hands, bite it and throw it behind him as he hugged us while making his “love sounds.” Because jealousy is within the range of normal responses I feel that it is “natural” but it is also plastic and is an emotional response that can be modified through operant conditioning. We humans are, I believe, unique among mammals in that we may choose to change our reactions, and with serious effort, accomplish that goal.
Humans have evolved as omnivores, eating both plant and animal foods for our entire 6.2 million year history as a species. Archeological evidence as well as our own teeth and digestive tract anatomy are evidence of that we were not ever strict herbivores. However, in only the recent past some groups have made the moral decision to become strict vegetarians. This is not our biological nature, but it is an obvious fact that our Homo Sapien intellect has endowed us with the ability to purposefully evolve culturally beyond our biological predetermination.
Because ancient humans spread out across the globe over many thousands of years, there was not a need for warfare between groups for territory. The humans that eventually ended up inhabiting the Australian continent, for example, averaged less than about one mile per year, as little as a 20-minute leisurely walk annually, in their trek to that remote continent, spread over a period of several thousands of years. Expansion was the release valve for competition. Even when humans inhabited vast tracts of territories, there was still room to expand rather than fight as areas to the interiors were settled. Largely, human migrations occurred along seashores or ice shelves. Later still, less desirable ranges were occupied by those groups that felt compelled by adventure, conflict or opportunity to form new civilizations. Just as lab rats or domestic animals become unnaturally aggressive when overcrowded, so will individual humans when confined, and often form aggressive gangs that compete viciously for territory and resources. I hold that the incidence of violence rose as territories and resources became less sufficient for some populations, who then cast a greedy eye on their neighbors whose possessions appeared to be easy to pillage.
In
