Do you think one's own real estate is necessary?

hqdefault.jpg

And they envy all the unbelievable blessings of our modern civilisation with it's wallstreet-gamblers and Mc Donalds-type of food endlessly.

See. I can play this game of ridiculous hyperbole too!

Don't assume people can't be happy just because they don't have sinks in their home and a TV screen in every room.


You mean like most primates who have actually changing partners. Actually animals living together happily for the rest of their live till they die is the exception, and those that exchange wedding rings have actually died out.

I am not even going into the concept of "love" here, but for most animals their relation does not extend outside the mating season. And it has a reason why this happens. Diversity with the geene pool. The more offspring the female has in her live with different partners, the less danger to end up with bad genes. Imagine if you're a Chimp and you bond with a partner that simply can't get children. Whoopeee! Well, your mistake! You chose for live mate!
Obviously, many animals have developed different strategies to survive in nature and all for different reasons. There are some who bond for ever. But like I said, that's rather rare in nature. And I really would not mix in "intelligence" here. What counts in the end, is if a species survives. Many see humans as the most intelligent species on this planet. But, will that really help us in survival? That still remains to be seen, and is actually a very controversial debated amongs biologists. Imagine if we destroy our selvs tomorrow with a third world war. And a couple of million years later, the planet doesn't even remember humanity anymore and the rats and cockroaches are still crawling around doing their thing. Just like if humans never existed.

Would you say this precious ingenuity and intelligence of ours has really worked to our benefit in the end? What counts for nature isn't if one species is more intelligent, but how well they are adapted to their environment and sudden changes. Intelligence can help, a lot. But doesn't have to. We don't even know if there is a real evolution for intelligence. Certain types of bacteria and viruses have survived for literaly 100 millions of years. And there are other animals which are still around as well. And it is very likely that those creatures might survive even us.



Yes, you can. See marriage today. The marriage we celebrate today has zero in common with the marriage that was practised 5000 years ago. Otherwise I would have to ask you, prove that the marriage we have today, is the exact same. Or that it has even the same purpose.
But you will have a very hard time, considering the incredible high numbers of different cultures trough human history.

A lot that has to do with marriage today comes from tradition, and not necessity. If there ever was one.

The influence of marriage on forming social structures is also impressive,
Social structures formed marriage. And not marriage social structures. Or do you want to tell me animals have kingdoms, sophisticated forms of agriculture, and social structures as we saw them in ancient egypt and greece?
Don't be ridiculous. Why do you try to explain marriage with animals, biology and evolution here? If you believe in marriage, ok! That's your thing. But there is no biological basis for any of it. Infact, using biology and nature to explain marriage in my opinion just weakens your argument, because there is a lot more evidence in nature that those species, which don't bond for all of eternity, survive better, have more offspring and are generally the norm.


The fact that many females somehow sailed trough the world to populate new areas, with their "husbands" kinda tells me that his superstition was not always taken very serious. So no, please englighten me. What was the logic behind this superstition.

I guess the superstition about burning witches was also based on logic and practical I guess. Well, not so much for the females though ...

But more important, please answer the question why this is even relevant today and with marriage.

Yes, I think that they do envy our achievements. With a crucial difference being that in our culture, you aren't forced into being the Michelin Man, while people in certain other cultures aren't given a choice between having and not having in-door plumbing.

You quaintly ignored everything I wrote on how the environment affects mating habits. Of course primates are r-selected, they live in jungles which provide more than enough food for them! Marriage was first "made official" in agricultural societies, which were K-selected and practiced monogamy before agriculture, just like the predatorial pack animals of these environments such as wolves.

As for women on ships, you are aware that during long voyages, the chances of sailors fighting over the women in question, as well as the women themselves getting ra.... I mean, culturally enriched and diversified were very high. This wasn't the case on large transports since the sailors would usually be outnumbered by the colonists, as well as these voyages lasting for a shorter time. Which is something a google search could have told you just as easily.

As for why the question of superstitions was relevant, all you need to do is scroll upwards.
 
Most of your mistakes can be described in one sentence really.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

In other words, Correlation does not imply causation. And it is funny that you're talking here out of your ass for billions of people. Again. There are different cultures. And not all people value our way of live the same way as we do. Not to mention that this idea of western wealth can't even work for everyone.

Do you really believe that every single person on this planet is envy of the western world? Yes, it might come as a surprise to you, but some people actually enjoy their mud huts and spears. Some people value their way of life, for it is a much simpler way, for the lack of better words. Different cultures have simply different values. What's so hard to understand here?
What ever if that is the right choice for everyone is a whole different question. But, it doesn't say ANYTHING about the intelligence of people. Infact, I would say surviving without all this technology, does take quite some ingenuity.
I would definetly not question the intelligence of someone just beacuse he grew up in a shack or jungle where he is hunting his food.
How can someone be so arrogant.

I mean what's next coming from you? Claiming that jews are rich because greed is part of their genes? The white European is inherently superior to the Arabians?

You quaintly ignored everything I wrote on how the environment affects mating habits. Of course primates are r-selected, they live in jungles which provide more than enough food for them! Marriage was first "made official" in agricultural societies, which were K-selected and practiced monogamy before agriculture, just like the predatorial pack animals of these environments such as wolves.
Yes, because it doesn't make really much sense. Honestly, I am not sure what you're trying to explain, because human marriage and mating in nature are two very different things.

You're simply throwing several different topics together, as like it would mean something. But all that I see is a very confused theory of yours that is not based on any data or hard facts. Did you ever cared to even read something about evolution and biology?
At this point, it's just your opinion. Based on some obscure idea of how nature has to be. Comparing primates and other animals with humans, mixing intelligence with mating habits - as like that would mean anything, and trying to prove that "marriage" is somehow the prefered choice. For whom actually?

I already told you. If you believe marriage is the best, that is your thing. But there is absolutely nothing in nature that you can use to support marriage as the one and true form of relationships.
 
Most of your mistakes can be described in one sentence really.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

In other words, Correlation does not imply causation. And it is funny that you're talking here out of your ass for billions of people. Again. There are different cultures. And not all people value our way of live the same way as we do. Not to mention that this idea of western wealth can't even work for everyone.
Of course, talking out of your ass for billions of people is only fine when you do it. How could I ever be so blind as to think otherwise.
Do you really believe that every single person on this planet is envy of the western world? Yes, it might come as a surprise to you, but some people actually enjoy their mud huts and spears. Some people value their way of life, for it is a much simpler way, for the lack of better words. Different cultures have simply different values. What's so hard to understand here?
Why is it so hard to understand that there are objective standards by which one values a civilization. You're like the people claiming that the Huns weren't barbarians because they made nice trinkets.
What ever if that is the right choice for everyone is a whole different question. But, it doesn't say ANYTHING about the intelligence of people. Infact, I would say surviving without all this technology, does take quite some ingenuity.
I would definetly not question the intelligence of someone just beacuse he grew up in a shack or jungle where he is hunting his food.
How can someone be so arrogant.
Yes, it says quite a lot about the intelligence of the people since intelligence is mostly genetic. It's no guarantee, but then again there's no guarantee that the world won't perish the very instant you read this. But chances are it won't.
I mean what's next coming from you? Claiming that jews are rich because greed is part of their genes? The white European is inherently superior to the Arabians?
The reason Jews are successful is largely genetic. Since they could only go into high-intelligence professions for centuries, the less intelligent ones could afford less children, starved, or were starved into converting. It also has to do with their priestly class being allowed to reproduce.

Two thirds of marriages in Arabia are consanguinous. You do the math.
Yes, because it doesn't make really much sense. Honestly, I am not sure what you're trying to explain, because human marriage and mating in nature are two very different things.
What's your point? There are monogamous animals as well as polygamous ones.

You're simply throwing several different topics together, as like it would mean something. But all that I see is a very confused theory of yours that is not based on any data or hard facts. Did you ever cared to even read something about evolution and biology?
At this point, it's just your opinion. Based on some obscure idea of how nature has to be. Comparing primates and other animals with humans, mixing intelligence with mating habits - as like that would mean anything, and trying to prove that "marriage" is somehow the prefered choice. For whom actually?
Ahem....
I am not even going into the concept of "love" here, but for most animals their relation does not extend outside the mating season. And it has a reason why this happens. Diversity with the geene pool. The more offspring the female has in her live with different partners, the less danger to end up with bad genes. Imagine if you're a Chimp and you bond with a partner that simply can't get children. Whoopeee! Well, your mistake! You chose for live mate!
Obviously, many animals have developed different strategies to survive in nature and all for different reasons.
...you were saying....?
I already told you. If you believe marriage is the best, that is your thing. But there is absolutely nothing in nature that you can use to support marriage as the one and true form of relationships.
Except all the things that you can? You said it yourself, there are many animals which pick mates for life. Why don't you compare the success of children from monogamous marriages to that of children raised by single mothers or people in open relationships and whatnot.
 
Back
Top