| OOC |
[Sep. 24th, 2006|07:18 pm] |
|
FYI: Garrett and Alan's discussion of the Freilicher case is finally underway. Let the snarkage begin. |
|
|
| What are your thoughts about monogamy? |
[Sep. 2nd, 2006|11:09 am] |
The human species is unnaturally restrictive when it comes to physical and emotional relationships. We tote around the gilded concepts of "commitment" and "loyalty," when in truth there are very few mammals -- and for that matter, very few primates -- that choose to stay with the same biological sex partner for the entirety of their lives. The drive of procreation demands that we continue to spread our biological information at rates that seem alarming at first, but are only understandable, given the ancient drives that are programmed into our DNA. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, our genetic ancestors didn't have the modern luxuries of shelter and antibiotics that we frequently employ to assist in our perpetuation. Instead, they knew that they needed to allow as many females as possible to bear children in order to make sure that the human line continued. In fact, we are honoring a time-honored tradition that goes deeper than any religious or moral obligation's history engaging in non-monogamous practices.
That said, there is a form of "dedication" present in our genes. Without the exclusive, perhaps even selfish need to hoard, our species would not have survived either. We needed to be aggressive with food, territory and mates. This aggressiveness has, over time, somehow developed into a barbaric need to prevent others from creating better combinations of genetic material, and in fact, may have prevented a genetic mutation that would have otherwise ensured protection against certain viruses and health conditions. We may have doomed our entire race.
Think what you will, but the undeniable truth stands for itself. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
likes_tongue's journal