I doubt "instincts" think much about the lack of capability for children to reproduce.Originally Posted by DogOfDanger
I doubt "instincts" think much about the lack of capability for children to reproduce.
Why do you think that being celibate is "not unnatural"?
Eh... rape isn't evolutionary. a) it doesn't provide a stable family unit for the offspring, decreasing its chances of survival, b) it has social consequences that can get the rapist killed or children abandoned / aborted / killed, or neglected by the mother, etc.
Of course they do, successful survival / reproduction is their whole purpose. FFS did none of you read a biology book in highschool? It's sexual selection, it is the primary driver of evolution, it's not a new concept...
Most mammals don't have "stable family units".
Culture and Evolution are two distinct things. Humanity has a lot of cultural diversity.
Genghis Khan placed little emphasis on producing "stable family units" (he actually wiped out about 2% of the world's population), but from an evolutionary perspective, his genes have been quite successful.
You are seeing genes from a teleological perspective.
If a gene was simply "raping children", then yes, that wouldn't be very good for the future longevity of the gene in a population.
If the gene instead motivates an inclination "to have sex with as many humans as possible" however, that may be better.
The larger the animal the longer it takes for it to mature to adulthood, and the longer the father / mother stick around to provide for it. Human offspring take the longest of the mammals to mature, about 12-18 years depending on what you go by. Other mammals such as wolves, moose, bears etc. take a while to raise their offspring. All large mammals like this tend toward monogamy and stable family units. BTW I'm actually citing you my biology textbook here.
No, you're wrong, try again.
This is one of the common misconceptions about evolution, that it is just this polygamous indiscriminate fuck fest. No, if you're a fish it is... but not if you're a bear or human.
Evolution leads to differentiation in survival strategies based on the species and its specific circumstances. Another example I like to use is the black widow. The female black widow actually eats the male after she's inseminated. The male provides food and sustenance for the black widow nursing the young...
Spiders often go long periods without food, and they reproduce in very large numbers. They need some reliable source of energy for reproduction, and alot of it. So for spiders this strategy of killing and consuming the mate actually make sense. But you're a human, and if you were to do that... it would not be evolutionary, we would also have to lock you up for it.
So you see there are big differences in how evolution can work based on the specific species.
But you just said that culture and evolution are distinct things. You're correct, but I'm talking about our natural instincts - which evolved in natural conditions over billions of years. Kahn here committed this act as the leader of a civilization, and his offspring here were born into civilization, not nature. Modern society has derailed the natural instincts, and thrown a wrench in the evolutionary process. For example, alot of people with disease-ridden genes actually can survive and reproduce successfully now thanks to modern medicine. Hence culture - modern society - has really kind of stopped evolution from occurring. But when we talk about natural instinct we're talking about billions of years of development, and that can't just be changed in a few thousand by modern society, so... Nope, wrong again.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 09-25-2022 at 12:23 AM.
Rape is common even in large mammal species.
You cannot say that just because most human males don't abandon their offspring that this is "unnatural" or behaviour that has no evolutionary advantage
They can overlap.
If you want to think about evolution and natural instinct think about circumstances in nature. In nature if a man went around raping all the women in the tribe - the local tribe of just a few dozen people - the men would stone him to death. Infact male monkeys will conspire together and tear apart the alpha male if his social approval drops too low, that's well documented, so...
The most successful males from an evolutionary perspective were genocidal rapists, slavers, polygamists etc. rather than people who favoured "monogamy and stable family units". For such males, when little input is required to cause a pregnancy but a lot of energy is required to raise a child, from an evolutionary perspective, it is more in their interest to not stick around.
I dislike this, but I wouldn't feel uncomfortable labelling such behaviour as "unnatural" simply because I dislike it.
That could still be a successful strategy, from an evolutionary perspective.
The "natural" way of things throughout history was to enslave and rape neighbouring tribes. How do you explain that?
No, it isn't common, I've only heard of it happening in what looks like extinction conditions. For example, I watched a documentary on a species of Manta rays off an island whose females were hunted for their eggs. The females were hunted to near extinction, but the males were not... there was a 9:1 ratio of males to females left. The males could not find mates. They were observed forcibly mounting the females. The females tried to escape... they then banded together to ward off the males.
This happened in nature yes, but it's a desperate response to an extinction event and the blocking of the instincts. In some sense you could say the male manta rays had their sexual instincts repressed by circumstances.
Evolution would always prefer a stable family unit to an unstable one, in my scenario this simply wasn't possible... consensual sex and a stable family unit has very clear survival / reproductive advantages over rape.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 09-25-2022 at 12:59 PM.
Dolphins regularly rape. They don't go round thinking it is unnatural to do so because it wouldn't lead to "stable family units".
Well, fundamentally I claim that civilization is anti-evolutionary. It's characterized by the derailment of instinct... look at how it's driven by insatiable appetite.
The Bible commands women to marry their rapists, and Islam permits the rape of slaves (wives too actually).
I'm sure this behaviour has happened for as long as there have been humans. It's only civilization that has reduced such violence.
a) for all you know the dolphins actually have some understanding between them, you're just interpreting their behavior. It may actually be dolphin erotic fantasies of control that you are witnessing. Try proving they're actually raping eachother.
b) When I hear about animals behaving like this the first thing I do is carefully examine their circumstances, and every time I've done it I've found major problems in the environment. For example, their habitats have been destroyed, their social & mating hierarchies have been thrown off, they're unable to successfully expand, they're being poached or something, etc.. Humans have fucked the planet very badly, the animals are effected in many ways. Look at the Manta Rays as an example.
So the answer is I'd have to actually look into what you're talking about, but I can tell you that rape does not bode well for the survival of offspring since there is no stable mother / father to look after the offspring.
What makes you think you can say that humans are a naturally non-rapist, monogamous species?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animalsStudies of primates support the relationship between testis size and mating system. Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system, have moderately sized testes. The moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy in humans may result in a low to moderate amount of sperm competition.
I've never read that anywhere.
It seems to me that you're driven by some deeper ideological need to assert this, because you just keep insisting that rape is evolutionary but you're not really responding to the arguments.
Carry onward!
Dolphins have been known to have non-consensual sex with dead dolphins. What understanding do you think is going on there?
I didn't say rape was evolutionary.
Your wikipedia article actually does a good job giving detailed reasons, just go read it.
How do you know the dolphin isn't in love with that dead dolphin, wrought with grief and wanting to screw it one last time as a way to say goodbye to it? And where did this happen...? Again, when I hear about these aberrant behaviors in animals I look at their circumstances carefully for a reason, and I usually see one. You're just saying these things, you have no context on it nor are you providing any. It looks to me like you didn't look any further for an explanation, because you're not providing any further info... so what are you doing then, just looking for shallow reasons to quickly confirm to yourself some preconceived ideological notion?
The fact a behavior occurs does not make it evolutionary, nor does it make it primarily instinct-driven. Go read the wikipedia article you provided, it looks like a great article.
It doesn't say whether or not a "a stable family unit" is preferable for humans, nor whether this would be evolutionary.
There are many observable instances of dolphins being clearly unwilling.
Actually it does, idiot:
"In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy."
Chickens have been bred to maximise yield of meat and eggs. This doesn't provide a stable family unit for the offspring either, but there are probably more offspring than at any other time in history.
Until you provide evidence of this it's just your own sort of useless personal judgment of what the dolphins are doing (and you've already shown yourself to be quite stupid), so go ahead and show me what you're talking about.
No, it doesn't say whether or not a "a stable family unit" is preferable for humans.
Can you explain based on what you quoted why chimpanzees are definitely polygamous, but humans in your view prefer "a stable family unit" from an evolutionary perspective?
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/120401/Timestwo/int012.html
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/arti...s-rape-humans/
I've already explained this when i told you human offspring take the longest of any known offspring to become independent.... this means they are vulnerable the longest. They require the longest period of child rearing. Do you understand, you dumbshit? Now read this again:
"In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy."
Yet you are confident that priests raping children has no evolutionary benefit.
I am confident priests raping children has no evolutionary benefit, yes, because children are not fertile, are they you little moron? Do you know what fertile means? That's right... it means capable of reproducing. And do you know why that matters? Yes... right. Because reproduction is what drives evolution, and that's what we're talking about - evolutionary benefit. Isn't that amazing you little idiot?
You seem to think there's a 1:1 correlation in these things. Chimpanzees also have offspring that are vulnerable for a long time (many, many years).
Partner bonds are not the only way of looking after offspring. Group rearing (whether by related or unrelated members) is also a common feature in human and chimpanzee societies.
What evolutionary benefit does slavery have, in your view?
No, "natural selection" is what drives evolution: the survival of those most suited to surviving in an environment and having offspring.
You determined what is a "natural" instinct is based solely on reproduction: but many genes have been shown to be disadvantageous for the individual, but beneficial for the group as a whole, for example, some genes that benefit group behaviour in bees and wasps.
A sex drive can for example be beneficial for the group as a whole, but useless for many/most of the organisms in the group.
Not all behaviors have a broad evolutionary benefit, or are primarily driven by natural instinct. You can have instincts that are smothered and express in deferred ways. For example, in extinction conditions, where the instincts are blocked - like in the example with the 9 male manta rays mounting their females - what you see is not a broad evolutionary behavior, it's the unhealthy desperate expression of the instincts.
This is more like a derailment of the instincts - in the same way an autoimmune disorder is a derailment of the immune system. The instincts are not serving their purpose, they're not within the environment they evolved for. They're expressing in maladaptive ways...
Look again at the scenario with the spider eating the male before laying eggs. Now consider whether there's some condition where it would actually be in the best interest of human survival to kill the partner and eat it... or eat members of your family. Look at the Dahmer party, where these pioneers got stuck on a mountain and had to eat one another to survive.
This is not driven primarily by instinct. Instinct takes billions of years and repeated selection to evolve. This is a practical consideration that the pioneers took, in spite of and in conflict with their instincts, they decided to eat one another.
This would be a grotesque thing for you to do - it would not be instinctual, it would be contrary to all your instincts....
So this is what we're dealing with in these extinction-like scenarios. Instinct is something honed by circumstances that are homeostatic, and it is honed over billions of years...
For a spider it IS instinctual to eat the mate, because for them it's an evolutionary behavior, their instinct evolved or that....
You get ppl telling gay men that "It's okay to be gay, as long as you don't do anything gay, because that would be gay" - then naturally there's a high chance their homosexuality would express itself in ways that are immoral and predatory. Look at the weird mind fuck they're doing to ppl while pretending they are more righteous and good on top of it etc.
U can't blame heteronormative society entirely, but if both the self-hating gays and anti-gay Karens work together to make the gay person accepted as long as they can't actually be gay- it's little surprising that it would express itself in twisted ways. I mean Conservatives loooove to talk about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia ((and it's in cases like there really is one)), but it's not really as black and white as they make it out to be. And objectively we need heterosexuality to make people, but as soon as there's enough there's more and more gays get born to naturally balance that anyway. Civilizations that aren't developed very well always put heterosexuality on a pedastal, cuz it obviously needs more str8 ppl & heterosexuality to make it thrive - but they are only correct in the short term. And it becomes a thing to scapegoat or an illusion, where they think throwing more heterosexuality at the problem will fix it- but they are still just poor and suffering.
Toad with a "natural" instinct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITY9luBw3_I
but useless in this context.
How on earth could raping a child be advantageous to survival / reproduction? It doesn't produce offspring. And how is raping a child beneficial to the group...? Raping a child? BTW - group benefit has far less evolutionary weight than an individuals own reproduction. It is a tertiary benefit at best. People who want to promote their own anti-evolutionary ideals like to try & treat survival/reproduction & group benefit as equal alternatives, it's just nonsense, sexual selection is the primary driver of evolution.
No, you aren't making any sense here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote