We'll cure those too. Rather than worrying about that scenario, I'd rather consider what the world will be like when there are no STDs. It's certainly more amusing than fretting about something that has already happened(super-variants of run of the mill STDs).
As an aside, I wonder what role STDs played in the development of religion and the religious superstitions surrounding sex. Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?
I don't think historic STDs were a major component of the bans against promiscuity, since before syphilis was brought over from the Americas, you didn't really have life-threatening STDs around in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia (HPV's link with cancer notwithstanding).
Much more likely, the problems with promiscuity were related to 'bastard' children and their role in inheritance; and to the father's uncertainty that a child was biologically theirs. In addition, many religious outlooks favor abstinence from bodily pleasures of all kind, so forbidding sexual pleasure and especially promiscuity seems well in tone with this.
Interesting that syphilis is theorized to come from the new world. I hadn't heard that before.
Did the old world have gonorrhea, herpes, genital warts, molluscum, trich, or any other visible STD? It seems like any one of those would be sufficient to cause a superstitious, iron age people to suspect something was plaguing the sexually promiscuous.
The old world had a lot of STDs, but nothing as destructive as syphilis.
Notably, when syphilis was introduced into the Old World population, it was described as a very severe acute disease. It only became more chronic after a period of adaptation that took several decades. This might have made the initial societal reaction more extreme.
> I don't think historic STDs were a major component of the bans against promiscuity, since before syphilis was brought over from the Americas, you didn't really have life-threatening STDs around in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia (HPV's link with cancer notwithstanding).
Chlamydia rarely has life threatening complications but gonorrhea and hepatitis can kill. And there aren’t any STDs that don’t often cause infertility. Religions favored not screwing around because you’re guaranteed to get an STD eventually if you do, and that will very likely lead to infertility or worse.
>>Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?
The problem is that not everybody likes to share their partner. The likely consequence of a partner sleeping with other people is separation or divorce.
Also, I'm pretty sure that STDs have virtually never stopped anybody from cheating on their spouse if they wanted to. So no, I don't think that a lack of STDs will have much effect on monogamy, if at all.
>Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?
I guess define consequences? I sure as heck wouldn’t be ok with my wife having sex with other people just because STDs aren’t a problem… the consequence would be divorce with or without the STD.
> Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?
Well yeah, sex is cool and all but I don't like strangers or sharing.
I've never understood the "promiscuous" lifestyle that a different part of society seems to be natural at. Thankfully that's not the norm, just one of many subcultures.
What do you mean by can monogamy survive? Do you mean that in a world without STDs it would be abnormal for someone to expect an intimate relationship to be exclusive?
The intimate relationship is one component of monogamy, there's also having a steady nearly guaranteed sexual partner with low risks.
Ideally you're both monogamous so unless one had STIs before entering the relationship, it's incredibly unlikely either would acquire one and almost certainly not from intercourse but through some other means.
There are people more interested in the low risk stable sexual benefits of a trustworthy monogamous relationship. I personally doubt it's more than the number of people wanting an intimate relationship beyond sex though.
There are very little consequences to promiscuity today as long as you're not gay. Heterosexual vaginal sex is very low risk, especially with birth control being widely available. There's a bit of a gender disconnect in risk, but for a male it's even lower risk in terms of catching something than for the female.
Treatment resistant variants of syphillis and gonherea are on the upswing. Herpes is still a persistent problem. And these risks don't care whether you're gay or straight. I don't care what people do (inside the bounds of informed consent), but no matter what, wear a condom and don't share needles.
Is monogamy in humans the result of evolutionary pressures or a social construct to serve other purposes? With the right social indoctrination the majority might not care at all about monogamy, even find it strange and undesirable, ala Brave New World.
What if you don't have a family? In Brave New World there are no families. Technology plus social indoctrination have eliminated the need and desire for them.
A partner, of both the sexual and emotional variety, is far more satisfying than any random sexual hookup. Its the bedrock foundation of my life. Some sort of short lived satisfaction from hooking up with a random doesn't hold a candle to what we have. I'm not religious, we don't have kids, and we've been together for almost 20 years.
It's more nature than nurture. Babies died in a Romanian orphanage because they were only fed and diaper changed and not held for example. I can't find the source right now but I did find this https://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-...
You know monogamy and pair-bonding are observed in many species? Several species of apes, monkeys, birds and fish have been observed to implement life-long pair bonding.
From a cold, logical perspective there are certainly evolutionary benefits to having a pair-bond not least of which is future certainty of care, for yourself and your joint offspring.
From a cold logical perspective, it would be advantagous to have many mates you share with others, that all take care of any offspring, since then even in the event of the death of the biological parents, the social parents can continue care for the offspring. Redundancies and failsafes are better if you have more.
There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship.
Pair bonding is crucial to social organization and casual encounters erode the psychological capacity for such bonds, without nullifying the innate human desire for long term companionship. The result in a "sex positive" society is a growing proportion of perpetually lonely and frustrated people, or dysfunctional relationships. One of the few instances in my opinion where ignorance truly may be bliss.
So, to your question, it's quite possible that we will rediscover the purpose of monogamous marriage, if we can reason past the barriers of some recent ideologies.
> There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship.
Do you have any reading material on this to suggest?
Marriage has often had little to do with monogamy. Adultery was the norm throughout the centuries, particularly when marriage was forced, had to happen very early in life, and when divorce was not an option. Prostitution was often utilized most by the married, not by bachelors.
As an aside, I wonder what role STDs played in the development of religion and the religious superstitions surrounding sex. Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?