From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 10:45:57 MST
[Kalkor] The first one that pops into my mind is protection and education of
young. This is a pretty important one in small- and infrequent-offspring
producers such as ourselves. This may explain the retention of behaviors
such as life-mating and child-rearing.
[Hermit] Err, I beg to differ. Actuarially, this is a strong argument in
favor of pack behavior strategies, extended families and most of all, line
families. Not small social groups which maximize the probability of
disaster. In a larger "family," particularly one which has a large age
spread, there is a much lower probability of <em>all</em> the care givers
being lost at once.
[Kalkor] Monogamy however? Anyone know much about pre-christian "marital"
behaviors? Not me...
[Hermit] Until we became civilized, we lived in a wide variety of exactly
such "family packs" (evidence of burial sites and genetics) even though we
don't know exactly how they were arranged. The transition to civilization
between 10 kyears BCE and 3k5 kyears BCE gradually changed that, and I
suspect reflects a combination of lower risks and the immense power a
priesthood obtains when it develops the ability to "ration sex." The fact
that they have not yet lost that power, although some of it has been usurped
by the state may be a secondary indication that this hypothesis is correct.
Unfortunately, the fact that we learn social (and particularly jealous)
behavior early on in life, makes it very difficult to perform a valid
experiment to prove that this is the case, although the breeding behavior of
small groups and the consequent unfortunate but well documented cases of
unculled* reinforcement of harmful recessives makes it likely that the
hypothesis is correct.
[Kalkor] Possibly the need for acceptance and affirmation in herd organisms?
One that is self-aware usually wants to know that he/she is accepted by the
pack, not shunned or exiled. One that is indifferent to kin wouldn't
necessarily stay with the crowd, and may therefore be culled by good ole
nature...
[Hermit] I cannot imagine how this encourages small groups? Surely this
should encourage larger "family groupings"? There is also an assumption that
smarter = loner, and this is not observed to be the case. Many of the really
smart camouflage themselves right in the middle of the herd. An excellent
strategy as they can usually move the herd in the ways they seek without
drawing attention to themselves.
[Kalkor] Ooooh, can't think of anymore right now. Good question though!
[Hermit] /me agrees that it is a good question.
* Pharonic and animal husbandry records show that when negative recessives
are culled at an appropriate level, that this can be the healthiest breeding
pattern, but that a reasonably large population (500 plus) is required to
allow line shifts when a negative hereditable mutation occurs (1 per 2,500
years in a healthy population. 1 per 3 years where the gene line starts out
as a sea of recessives - as is the current case with humans and some
endangered species).
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT