Are you saying the idea that maybe humans shouldn't be monogamous is absurd? This seems more like one of those things you can't say than an inherently absurd idea. How many other primate species are monogamous?
Human societies have had much variety in family structure, from polygamy to promiscuous monogamy. I don't think the suggestion that loosening up on the Judeo-Christian rooted idea of strict monogamy is absurd.
However, I am quite tired of discussing Paul's most recent piece. I've already digested the point and I haven't seen much merit in the criticism. Moving on to parody is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but there has to be other ideas to explore.
Anyone else on Hacker News young, beautiful, smart, and interested in exploring the possibilities of clan marriage?
Yes, and the funniest part is that he is probably oblivious to it. Consequently is argument can be turned against himself; if he can't understand fully the concept he try to present has ridiculous, no surprise he can't get an article written by someone else.
The "elite" (politicians, rock / sports / business stars...) are indeed known for either fucking their secretaries / fans / interns / homosexual toilet mates, or divorcing every couple of years, depending on their professional constraints. OTOH, people who don't want to dedicate all of their resources to their libido tend to settle for a safer and simpler monogamy.
This is more of an additional argument to PG's thesis than a parody, actually.
They are 'known' for it in the sense that if they do it, we will all 'know' about it. I'm sure that within a block of my home there are more people who've cheated that way than you could find in a week's worth of TMZ and The Drudge Report.
The analogy that this parody depends on is a very weak one, because PG's point is that the modern job in the modern company did not exist when we were hunter-gatherers, i.e. any time prior to the invention of modern agriculture.
Marriage, on the other hand, is the result of an intrinsic human tendency to form long-term relationships and raise children within those relationships. This tendency has probably existed for longer than the "modern" human species (the major evidence for this, as I remember, is the similarity between male and female size, and the fact that human monogamy is determined by the combination of helplessness and large size of the new-born infant, so that the mother requires major help from the father in order to raise her child successfully).
Modern civilisation has not done anything to prevent men and women getting together the way they always have, and it has had limited success in providing "artificial" alternatives.
I would argue the opposite: that lifelong monogamous marriage is unnatural. Witness divorce rates in Western society. (Many other cultures that are overtly polygynous.) Humans, by nature, are slightly biased toward polygyny.
Let's assume PG's argument is that employees are unhappy because they are going against the grain of human group-dynamic nature. By analogy, nearly a majority of married couples are unhappy because they are going against the grain of human polygynous nature.
I did a lot of reading about hunter-gatherers last year while researching another topic, and I was surprised how universal monogamous marriage is. It's so prevalent I suspect it's in our DNA. It seems to be bad when it's indeterminate who is the father of a child.
"How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker has some very well-reasoned arguments to support your intuition that it's in our DNA. [It's basically a popsci introduction to evolutionary psychology and cognitive science.]
One of the more entertaining discussions I've read about this is in Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal." There is a great discussion of monogamy, polygamy, and the circumstances that tend to generate both.
The thesis (as best as I can recreate it) is that monogamy comes naturally in hunter-gatherer societies, because there isn't much stratification (wealth can't be hoarded). So a 1:1 pairing makes economic sense. Polygamy tends to happen only in more stratified societies where wealth is unevenly distributed (if you need an answer for why some men would rather be poor in absolute terms in exchange for more wealth in relative terms, look no further). Because a very wealthy man may have multiple wives, weath distribution is more even for women than it is for men.
Then there are rare societies which have institutionally enforced monogamy with lots of wealth stratification. In these societies, wealth inequality between men will inevitably lead to substantial inequality between women as well. Suddenly, the stakes are much, much higher for women, which creates a far more competitive "marriage market." This is advanced as a theory for why, in American society, women tend to dress in flashy colors with elaborate displays, while the men tend to dress like penguins (the reverse of most of the animal kingdom) - it's a reflection of where the fiercest competition is taking place.
All of this is a "just-so" explanation, and isn't scientific, but still an interesting evoluationary and economic argument.
It increases our chances of survival, so I guess we can blame on the DNA :)
Or it increased, I don't know. By having a family, you took care and was protected by people with similar background and interests. Dumping your wife in the past meant none would take care of your children, who were either laboring to increase home sweet home aggregated value or were your legacy, who would took your inheritance. It gave meaning to work today, because someone would use it after you're gone.
And people do some pretty hardcore stuff for love. War, even. I guess you need to justify that kind of behaviour later in your life. What good would be to sacrifice so much and forget about it next week?
Nowadays more people have their basic needs covered, and the concept of personal freedom is much more present. So you don't need a family to have a shelter or food on the table, and it's ok to do what's best for you, not for someone or something else.
That's quite interesting. I would assume that polygamous tribes would be much more successful; if the biggest, fiercest chief gets ten wives instead of one, you've got to assume that there are going to be lots of little fierce ones toddling around, making the tribe more competitive. On the other hand, they might just end up killing each other, so polygamy could be useful if there's a more benign trait being bred for, like IQ. Perhaps extremely wealthy polymaths who like to fool around (e.g. http://www.dealbreaker.com/jeffrey_epstein/ and http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/15/071015fa_fact_... ) are the future.
The desirability of knowing the father's identity is a point against promiscuity, not polygamy. And indeed, people are less promiscuous in polygamous societies (that I know of), so it should be the other way around. No?
From "why is sex fun" I remember vaguely that there is an arms race between women and men going on? For example the point of "inside insemination" (don't know the right words) is that it is impossible to tell who is the real father of a child. It certainly sounded as if it was not a goal of humans to have children with only one partner over their lifetime, so I guess the advantages of marriage are not primarily in the sexual realm.
Monogamism prevalence is vey high, although not universal. There are rare matriarchal societies (matrilocal/focal, to be exact), where the "clan" is based on the offspring of one woman. Mating occurs between poeple of different clans and children are raised in the mother's clan, by their mother, aunts and uncles.
But even there, ideed, the children know who their father is, even though they don't have a peculiar relationship with him.
"It seems to be bad when it's indeterminate who is the father of a child."
Bonobo females use an interesting strategy that disagrees with this. When in estrus they mate with as many males in the group as possible to confuse the paternity. That way they get support from the entire troupe of males in rearing the young.
I fall into the camp "To each his own". Some people get their kicks at startups, some don't. If anything I would say there are corporate prides and solitary tiger entrepreneurs.
And those that can do both without whining are ligers...bred for their skills in magic.
I can't find the original source now, but the best summary/parody of the original article I read was roughly: "I'm wonderful because I founded a company and made a lot of money. Oh, you haven't founded a company? You suck."
