Re: Social evolution of hominids
debra mckay (debra.mckay@utoronto.ca)
Sun, 12 Jan 1997 23:11:34 GMT
ailak@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
>Yes, it is really absurd compared with what I tried to say! <g> I
>meant to say, that a man hanging around just for *sex*, alone, would
>not make any difference. There must be other mechanisms to *cause* a
>permanent pair bond. The *results* of permanent pair bonding may well
>include better care of children. Monogamous cultures have been the
>most successful. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??? Do you have some evidence to back this up? Off the top of
my head, I can't think of a single monogamous human culture in which
the monogamy wasn't *enforced* by religious and/or legal strictures, or
moderated by economic realities. That is, it is not "natural", but cultural.
>Did monogamy appear when new weapons made hunting more efficient,
>so that it began to have importance in providing food for the group?
>Men were more efficient in protecting, too, with this new power,
>and the importance of the 'gang' behaviour diminished a bit. So it
>allowed pairing?
>
>Is the beginning of such efficient hunting seen in the stone tools?
>In rapid spread of Homo s?
>Did erectus hunt?
>Were Neanderthals monogamous?
I'm confused. I got the impression in earlier posts that you didn't
think that monogamy was natural. Now it seems that you do. Could
you clarify your position, or have I missed some posts (which is entirely
possible--they seem to be falling off my newsfeed with startling rapidity,
these days)?
Deb
><g>
>
>
>> Paul.
>
> --
>Aila Korhonen in Finland ailak@walrus.megabaud.fi
>
|