You are on page 1of 2

Two by Two into Extinction

Long term pair bonding was never part of our genetic imperative, isn’t natural, and is possibly the least efficient means of promulgating the goals of evolution. Monogamy for the purposes of this essay is defined as the idea that one gender may only have sex with one member of the opposite gender at a time, until such time as they are ready to permanently abandon that mate. This definition struggles to cover both the idealized lifelong monogamy, and the more modern serial monogamy, where in a person claims monogamy, but jumps from mate to mate. There is no evolutionary advantage to the monogamous paradigm that I can identify beyond the ultra short term and brutal advantages associated with pecking order, as in wolf society. But since our society publicly rejects a caste system, this advantage must be ignored, unless we are willing to institute a system by which people fight for the best table at restaurants. But for purposes of long term survival and evolutionary advancement monogamy is quite simply unfit when looked at through intelligent eyes. Consider the following hypothetical. Let’s say a man is born with a superhuman regenerative ability. On the one hand he is born, into a society which does not advocate transhumanist values. Under the current system he would be fought over and after a time he would settle down with the best mate he could find for himself, they would ideally have a few children and their children would pass down the trait. It would take centuries for the trait to spread to the point of helping the species as a whole. And on the other hand, he is born into a society where extremely fit people are granted mating privileges -by simple process of supply and demand- with numerous others. In this society when the regenerative man is born he has the option of breeding with as many women as he physically can since he would be very novel and therefore extremely desirable. Besides who wouldn’t want their child to have a survival advantage like that? It would only take a few generations for the trait to spread far and wide in the second scenario. Now, subject both societies to a cataclysmic event, Society A, only has a few super tough individuals, Society B has hundreds of thousands, thanks to the exponential nature of unrestricted human procreation. Society A dies off, because of

decreased genetic diversity among the survivors, only those with the regeneration gene, society B prospers. This is a grossly simplified example, but it illustrates the core point; monogamy’s lack of speed is harmful. Consider cockroach reactions to the toxins we pump into the environment, does anyone think that ultra fast evolution is a bad thing for survival? Monogamy is in conflict with our genetic imperative. A more open breeding scenario is advantageous to everyone except the church, advertising, and the government. Those three groups thrive on the weakness, sexual tension, and inability of humans. A populous that was fit, sexually secure, and capable, would not require any of the three as they are today. They know this. They need us, we do not need them. Beyond that, there is something to be said for a person being denied breeding rights, just ask any of my detractors how many children they would like me to have. With monogamy people are encouraged to "settle" yielding a vast crop of mediocre people, this weakens the species, and generally makes people unhappy. It also contributes to a general quantity over quality effect, and I don’t know about you but I don’t like going in the same direction as fish with regard to breeding. I personally would rather hunt a girl I never will have a chance with and die with hope in my heart than settle for someone who doesn't want or love me truly. For many men, once a girl is married he considers them off limits and settles elsewhere, same with women, this leads to despair and really stupid songs. And all of this only applies to the reproductive aspects of monogamy. The emotional aspects of monogamy in a society of choice birth is a whole other topic covered later.