SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-your-parents-didn't-have-children,-then-you-probably-won't,-either dept.
Monogamy may have a telltale signature of gene activity
In the animal world, monogamy has some clear perks. Living in pairs can give animals some stability and certainty in the constant struggle to reproduce and protect their young—which may be why it has evolved independently in various species. Now, an analysis of gene activity within the brains of frogs, rodents, fish, and birds suggests there may be a pattern common to monogamous creatures. Despite very different brain structures and evolutionary histories, these animals all seem to have developed monogamy by turning on and off some of the same sets of genes.
"It is quite surprising," says Harvard University evolutionary biologist Hopi Hoekstra, who was not involved in the new work. "It suggests that there's a sort of genomic strategy to becoming monogamous that evolution has repeatedly tapped into."
Conserved transcriptomic profiles underpin monogamy across vertebrates (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1813775116) (DX)
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:22PM (11 children)
I read an article once that claimed that there is such a gene. Which people may have none, one or two copies of (from their parents). People who don't have this gene tend to be monogamous. People who have two copies tend to be polygamous, but are also more likely to be thrill seekers (they like extreme sports).
Personally I'm very happy in my (hopefully) lifetime marriage and sometimes feel sorry for polygamous people, who may never experience a long lasting, meaningful relationship. But hey, they get the extreme sports thrills instead.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:44PM (3 children)
She once told me she’d been with a thousand different people. She’s also a skydiver
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:22PM (1 child)
Does "jump into bed" and "skydive into bed" mean the same thing?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:27AM
Basically, yes. The minor difference is the time one gets there and the speed at impact.
I'm sure there should be some other specific difference, but I can't remember what.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @11:45AM
Sky Diver, Inside Her [youtube.com]Megaman Dive Man remix
(Score: 3, Touché) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 08 2019, @03:25PM (1 child)
OTOH, they may experience more than one long lasting, meaningful relationship at a time, and feel sorry for you.
Or perhaps some people might know better than to judge your situation by their personal preferences, eh?
--
Polygamy: The plural of spouse is spice.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:58PM
I wasn't trying to judge, polygamy just isn't my thing. I'm sure that polygamous people can be happy with it, that's even logical. I just have a very different frame of reference.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:21PM
Well, there is known to be such a gene among prairie voles. IIRC those on one side of some particular river have it, and those on the other side don't. And it regulates (among other things) oxytocin. This, of course, doesn't imply that oxytocin regulation is what makes the difference, but it's grounds to study that carefully.
So the question in my mind is "Is the genetic change they're talking about related to oxytocin regulation?". I don't know how far back that got evolved.
P.S.: Just because prairie voles manage things that way doesn't mean that all monogamous/polygamous species do. But it would also be interesting if voles turned out to be an unusual exception.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday January 08 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)
Well, there's traditional polygamy where some guy marries multiple wives, and then there's the modern reinvention of it called polyamory which is done by Millenials and some guy named Warren Buffet and old hippies nobody else cares about*. The two actually have very little to do with each other; polygamy is basically (with a few historical exceptions) a "perk" of archaic patriarchal society having to do with domestic structure and childrearing, and polyamory is that warm fuzzy idea that says you're, like, NOT automatically justified (as either a man or woman) to flip out and set your partner's car on fire just because they still get the feels for other people if you haven't discussed an exclusivity arrangement, because despite what Hollywood wants to tell you, those feels are biologically, if not culturally, normal, which sounds supported even by the article you were reading. There's some other nuance there, but the point is, the term "polygamy" gets a bad rap from all sides.
*gross oversimplification, just to be clear
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 08 2019, @08:22PM
When someone mentions polygamy I tend to think of places like Colorado City [wikipedia.org] which sounds like an absolute hellhole if you're not one of the chosen few.
Or a woman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @02:39AM
Technically, having more than 1 partner doesn't automatically imply they don't have long lasting and meaningful relationships.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:17PM
> who may never experience a long lasting, meaningful relationship
"Meaning" is a human construct, a self delusion. Some people find "meaning" in religion, art, or other pursuits. That you have to feel sorry for other people based on your own opinion of what should matter to other people, in my opinion, makes you more pitiful than the people you are pitying.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!