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 Immerman on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:28PM (1 child)
Only if the harem-masters contribute more to society than all the "cannon fodder" they displaced would have. In practice that's almost certainly not the case, especially not in capitalist societies where your wealth (and ability to support a harem) has very little relationship to your actual contributions.
Plus, you hint on another probable problem with societies that practice unidirectional harem arrangements - they tend to involve the enslavement of women. Not always, perhaps, but often enough that the massive loss of productivity by women is worth considering, even if you don't care about the morality: slaves make for singularly non-productive labor, little better than robots. (in fact, robot comes from the Czech word "robota" meaning "forced labor")
Of course, I get the feeling you're just playing the line of "hur, dur, I want a harem", when statistically speaking you would almost certainly be either canon fodder, or one of the men who can only get a single wife of substantially lower quality than you might otherwise attain, since the rich men almost certainly buy (one way or another) their many wives from the top of the pool, lowering the standards for everyone else.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday January 09 2019, @08:02PM
Indeed, my cheek is sore from excessive tongue friction.
The people interested and able to procure and maintain harems are not typically hindered by considerations about their probable impact on overall societal contributions of the individuals involved.