Are human beings naturally monogamous?

[ironduck]

I'm fairly sure that there's examples of primates that have learnt sign language using the basic signs they know to invent words to describe things they don't have a sign for, by combining two or more basic signs. I don't have a link, I will try and find one.

This is well known, several animals have shown the ability to create their own words by combining signs. Dolphins and orangutans for instance. I asked Taliesin what he meant exactly because it seems he's not really aware of the complexity of these animals.

 

[cgannon64]

Uh, I don't even know what you mean by that. But regardless, my question to you was whether god inserted soul into other animals as well or if they developed it on their own, or perhaps you see them as soul-less?

Further, if god at some point 'inserted' the soul into humans, when do you approximate that happened? You seem to imply that it happened to homo sapiens and not any other species of homo?

I regard other animals as soulless, although they obviously have "minds" of some sort. All I - and I think Taliesin - means by "animating power" is just that they, obviously, have some sort of will.

And, yes I think that humans are the only animals with souls. When did God give us souls? That is tough to say. It'd be handy for that to coincide with the beginnings of human creativity - of language, or cave drawings. Obviously a specific date for this sort of thing is impossible to determine, nor is it useful. All that needs to be said is that, when humans got souls, we became human, and not just upright biped tool-using apes.

Now this also relates to my beliefs about God's contact with man. If you beleive that God exists, it seems pretty obvious that he had to contact man and tell him this at some point - or, that knowledge of God's existence is innate to all beings with souls. This raises some interesting questions: Do people exist who have no concept of God whatsoever? If God exists, is it even conceivable that intelligent beings with souls could exist without knowing this? What does that say about Athiesm then - is innate untaught Athiesm even possible, if God exists?

Obviously this is far off topic for this thread, but you can see that the whole question of when humanity acquired souls relates to alot of other questions about the beginning of the relationship between man and God. Those questions were quite easily answered before scientific knowledge, but now that we know humanity did not just pop into existence, fully formed and talking to God, they're worth being discussed.

I disagree that prehistoric conditions are irrelevant. Conditions might have changed, but instinct hasn't had time to change drastically. Wouldn't a system be easier if it made an effort to look at what instinct actually is? Going against instinct where instinct is counter-productive makes sense. Going against instinct just for the sake of it doesn't make sense, it's just likely to cause problems for no benefit.

You posted earlier it comes down to culture wins or instinct wins. Do you think culture should be independent of instinct? And what do you think is the point of culture, and of societal norms?

My feeling on the issue is that it would be impossible for us to truly eradicate our instinct; all we can do is teach morality and culture that reinforces values opposite to our instinct, or values that modify our instinct. I think this is important because, as we have acquired reason, we can now determine whether instinct is worth following or not - we can decide what the goals of our race are, other than manic reproduction. Obviously, we have decided that there are many things which are worth more than reproduction: Raising good moral offspring, for example. To relate this back to monogamy/polygamy, we have decided that monogamy is better suited to raising intelligent and moral offspring, even though polygamy may be better suited to raising a huge number of offspring.

So, I think that our pre-historical sexual practices are irrelevant, because they are pre-cultural. What we did before we decided what was worth doing is a pretty pointless investigation, except out of curiosity. That will only give us insight into our instincts, and our instincts are only worth knowing so that they might be compared to our current goals as a species - and thrown out or kept accordingly.

 

[sanabas]

Why isn't it a good answer? Some people have a strong drive to find multiple partners, others have a strong focus on a single person and aren't interested in anything else.

Because I read the question as meaning 'human beings in general' not 'specific human beings'

I think it's a good answer to 'Will one person taken at random be naturally monogamous?' I don't think it's a good answer to 'Are humans as a species naturally monogamous?'

This is well known, several animals have shown the ability to create their own words by combining signs. Dolphins and orangutans for instance. I asked Taliesin what he meant exactly because it seems he's not really aware of the complexity of these animals.

Yeah. I have put a link in my edit of my previous post. I think that is what Taliesin meant about other primates not being able to invent language.

There's also examples of other animals having very rudimentary language isn't there? Even if it's just various audible signals for 'danger', it's still the sort of thing that I would imagine humans started off with before developing it more, and there's no reason other animals couldn't develop a more complex language over a lot of generations.

 

[ironduck]

Plenty of animals have languages, several animals have reasonably complex languages. Of the animals that we have taught a new language we have done so in order to communicate with them, not because they didn't already have a language. Those animals have then subsequently toyed with that new inter-species language in creative ways to expand upon it and personalize it. It's an extremely exciting subject

I don't understand what Taliesin meant though so I'll wait with adressing it until he replies.

 

[cgannon64]

What exactly do you define as an "animal language"? Are any of these animals thought to understand concepts?

 

[ironduck]

I regard other animals as soulless, although they obviously have "minds" of some sort. All I - and I think Taliesin - means by "animating power" is just that they, obviously, have some sort of will.

Ok, since you regard animals as without soul I'd like to know what you understand by it, because it's apparently not what I understand. I can think of soul in a spiritual way, of all living organism having a soul, something that is inherent to life. And I can think of soul as something that relates to self-awareness and emotions. The latter definition clearly includes certain advanced animals like primates, elephants, cetaceans..

And, yes I think that humans are the only animals with souls. When did God give us souls? That is tough to say. It'd be handy for that to coincide with the beginnings of human creativity - of language, or cave drawings. Obviously a specific date for this sort of thing is impossible to determine, nor is it useful. All that needs to be said is that, when humans got souls, we became human, and not just upright biped tool-using apes.

Well, if you count any sign of human creativity you can go back quite a bit further than just homo sapiens. In fact, if you see creativity as a sign of soul you'll have to include other animals.

And why is it not useful? Is it not useful to learn and understand these things? Well, I think learning is a great thing, so I think it's very useful.

Obviously this is far off topic for this thread, but you can see that the whole question of when humanity acquired souls relates to alot of other questions about the beginning of the relationship between man and God. Those questions were quite easily answered before scientific knowledge, but now that we know humanity did not just pop into existence, fully formed and talking to God, they're worth being discussed.

Which is exactly what I said above, it is useful! I of course don't understand how you can somehow equal soul with god the way you do, but that's what I'm trying to understand.

 

[ironduck]

What exactly do you define as an "animal language"? Are any of these animals thought to understand concepts?

Certainly. Try looking into the orangutan Chantek who was raised by the anthropologist Lyn Miles.

 

[ironduck]

Here's Chantek's own site, if you want me to find you more info I'll look tomorrow.

http://www.chantek.org/

 

[cgannon64]

Ok, since you regard animals as without soul I'd like to know what you understand by it, because it's apparently not what I understand. I can think of soul in a spiritual way, of all living organism having a soul, something that is inherent to life. And I can think of soul as something that relates to self-awareness and emotions. The latter definition clearly includes certain advanced animals like primates, elephants, cetaceans..

Essentially, to have a soul one must be conscious, and I don't think any of those animals are conscious to the full extent of the word. Sure, some can recognize themselves in a mirror, know that they are called by a certain name, etc., but none display consciousness. Taliesin's point about language shouldn't be dismissed: We can teach these animals concepts, but do any of them display this innately, beyond simple calls regarding danger and whatnot?

Well, if you count any sign of human creativity you can go back quite a bit further than just homo sapiens. In fact, if you see creativity as a sign of soul you'll have to include other animals.

By creativity, I mean creativity outside of toolmaking. As far as I'm aware that does not occur in animals naturally.

And why is it not useful? Is it not useful to learn and understand these things? Well, I think learning is a great thing, so I think it's very useful.

Which is exactly what I said above, it is useful! I of course don't understand how you can somehow equal soul with god the way you do, but that's what I'm trying to understand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stop archealogists' research - I'm just saying that human behavior in pre-historical times is only useful to explain instinct - and knowing instinct is only useful to explain whether or not it agrees with our current goals.

I'm saying that this knowledge is irrelevant to moral discussions - not to scientific ones.

 

[punkbass2000]

I don't really want to enter this discussion, and I don't know why I'm posting, but I guess I'm inclined to say that if there have ever been polygamous people, humans cannot be defined as "naturally" monogamous.

 

[Archbob]

And you will see the problems that it caused. The fact that Abraham and Sarah used Hagar to be the one who would provide Abraham with the promised Child. But God always said that Sarah would be the one who was the bear the child of promise. So when Sarah did bring a child into the world, her child was kept being taunted by Ishmael, Sarah saw that things had to changed and basically forced Hagar away from where she was working. The fact that Abraham had a concubine cause problems in the family. Every time you do see a person in the Bible having more than one wifeor even having concubines, it always leads to trouble.

Yes, but that says that humans are naturally not monogomous and its because of such reasons that laws were created to enforce monogomy.

I don't remember anywhere in the bible where it says men have to be monogomous.

The bible is sexist against women in the old testement so its different for them back then.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And, yes I think that humans are the only animals with souls. When did God give us souls? That is tough to say. It'd be handy for that to coincide with the beginnings of human creativity - of language, or cave drawings. Obviously a specific date for this sort of thing is impossible to determine, nor is it useful. All that needs to be said is that, when humans got souls, we became human, and not just upright biped tool-using apes.

I would say that all creatures have always had souls; the difference between humans and the rest is that humans have evolved the consciousness to understand that they do. God did not hve to pick a time to "insert" a soul. The evolution of consciousness was the process.

Now this also relates to my beliefs about God's contact with man. If you beleive that God exists, it seems pretty obvious that he had to contact man and tell him this at some point - or, that knowledge of God's existence is innate to all beings with souls. This raises some interesting questions: Do people exist who have no concept of God whatsoever? If God exists, is it even conceivable that intelligent beings with souls could exist without knowing this? What does that say about Athiesm then - is innate untaught Athiesm even possible, if God exists?

Again, there is no need for god to "make contact"; the awakening of consciousness opens the door to seeking god. The search is innate. It is a search for understanding, that began early in our evolving consciousness, has led people down many different paths including atheism. At this point you may add that: god had a specific answer in mind (christianity) and when humankind was able to grasp it, he stepped in and pointed the way.

 

[Narz]

All I've done is approach two non-laughable premises - that God exists and that humans have souls - in a rational way, and try to tease out exactly what happened. Is it that ridiculous? Is it ridiculous to ask when humanity acquired souls, if you beleive that humans have souls? Is it ridiculous to ask when God contacted man, if you beleive that God and man exist? Why is it funny when people apply reason to their beliefs in the supernatural? Should I not even think about these things? Just accept that God exists and men have souls and go on about my life, because it may seem silly to imagine the first caveman getting a soul? Because it requires some clunky phrases like 'insert'? Why do I seem like I'm descending into stupidity when all I'm doing is thinking about the supernatural? Are you saying I shouldn't think about these things?

Or is it the belief in God and souls that you find laughable? In which case, I'm the one who should be disappointed, not you.

Hey, I wasn't trying to insult you. I just don't understand how you can say a human has a soul and an animal doesn't. Also, why would God give us a soul? When and why? What about primitive people like the Bushmen or Aboriginals in Australia who live almost the same as humans probably did a few hundred thousand years ago. Did they miss out on souls?

And also, why would God create us with instinct if we can to fight to override it. That would be like playing Civ II (or III or IV, whichever) on Chiefton and expecting it to play a certain way and being mad when it didn't.

Also, if you grew up in ancient Greece do you think you would have as much unshakable faith in Zues and Neptune as you currently do in Yahweh & Jesus?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Polygamy and monogamy are cultural constructs and unrelated to basic human nature. Like all culturally driven lifestyles, they are subject to change and evolution. Individual perople will accept or reject such things based on their personality or social status. If a culture has adopted polygamy as the norm, most people will accept it on the surface. If it has adopted monogamy, they will accept that. Within any culture, there will be people who ignore the cultural noirms and live how they want.

Western values and juris prudence have been moving the whole world into a monogamous frame of reference since 1500 AD. There is no reason to think that it will remain so over the next 500 years.

 

[punkbass2000]

Polygamy and monogamy are cultural constructs and unrelated to basic human nature.

Incidentally, if you don't mind my asking, what would you say is related to basic human nature?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Incidentally, if you don't mind my asking, what would you say is related to basic human nature?

Hmmm...How people act (or can act) as individuals is the biggie. Human nature only comes from within. Because we reason (human nature), we do things that manifest themselves as "planning". Because we want to understand, we take things apart. Because we want/need companionship, we organize into families or groups. Human nature contains the building blocks for higher levels of activity at the social and cultural level. Our human nature allows us to create myriad constructs that can be acted upon, that may or may not actually be useful over time in the world.

An incomplete list might include such things as:
curiosity
patience
ingenuity
persistence
hate
love
reason
adaptability
fertility

Human nature contains all the key traits that have allowed us to succeed (and fail) as a species. Would we be as advanced technolocially as we are without curiosity or persistence? Would we have governments if we didn't need to live in groups? Monogamy and polygamy are just two ways we can satisfy our need for companionship.

 

[Taliesin]

Okay, briefly, before I collapse into bed:

About art: as cgannon mentioned, no animal has developed art or representation of any kind. We can teach some great apes, with utmost effort and by exposing them artificially to human culture, to create more or less featureless abstract art (better, I'll grant, than the work of many modern artists), and some of them learn to like making things. (That link about Chantek was pretty darn cool, by the way.) That seems to be about all we can do. Do they ever come up with art without being trained to do so by humans? Do they teach what they've learned about art to others of their kind? Do they realise what they're doing when they make beads, and apply the same concept in order to craft statues? Do they tell stories to each other, or have any kind of great-ape mythology? No. But humans had all of those fully-formed in the oldest evidence we can find of human society.

About language: again, cgannon mentioned this. We can teach great apes to express themselves about some things in a limited way, and at least there is some evidence here that they transmit that knowledge (Koko taught her daughter sign language). But it is not at all clear that they understand semantic complexity. IIRC, chimps have a hard time distinguishing subject from object, and their "sentences" likely aren't sentences as we understand them. Here's a link. The upshot is that animal "language" ability is explicable in behaviourist terms, and that even great apes do not learn language the way we do. Even the famous "water-bird" innovation for duck isn't obviously a leap of symbolic thinking, because Washoe might merely have meant "bird I saw in the water" or somesuch. It looks as though apes just don't have the ability to think in terms of symbols, metaphors, analogies, or relations. Don't get me wrong, I would find it immensely fascinating and just plain cool to converse with an orangutan, even in the limited form that is available, but I think there is clearly a qualitative difference between human language and the expressive abilities of apes.

My point isn't that orangutans and bonobos and dolphins aren't complex and interesting and remarkably intelligent, because they clearly are, but that reason is not the faculty by which we can understand what a chimpanzee does. No ape has ever gone about asking its fellows what the good is, or why exactly they live the way they do; no ape has ever looked at the stars and wept at their beauty; no ape has ever buried its father, with flowers around his neck; no ape has ever observed that the moon is made of green cheese, or told its child that a cow jumped over it; no ape has ever been killed for telling another ape to get out of the light while it drew triangles in the sand. But men did these things scores of thousands of years ago, all over the planet. If man is a beast, he is a miraculous one; otherwise he must be a very different kind of thing.

 

[punkbass2000]

Okay, briefly, before I collapse into bed:

About art: as cgannon mentioned, no animal has developed art or representation of any kind. We can teach some great apes, with utmost effort and by exposing them artificially to human culture, to create more or less featureless abstract art (better, I'll grant, than the work of many modern artists), and some of them learn to like making things. (That link about Chantek was pretty darn cool, by the way.) That seems to be about all we can do. Do they ever come up with art without being trained to do so by humans? Do they teach what they've learned about art to others of their kind? Do they realise what they're doing when they make beads, and apply the same concept in order to craft statues? Do they tell stories to each other, or have any kind of great-ape mythology? No. But humans had all of those fully-formed in the oldest evidence we can find of human society.

About language: again, cgannon mentioned this. We can teach great apes to express themselves about some things in a limited way, and at least there is some evidence here that they transmit that knowledge (Koko taught her daughter sign language). But it is not at all clear that they understand semantic complexity. IIRC, chimps have a hard time distinguishing subject from object, and their "sentences" likely aren't sentences as we understand them. Here's a link. The upshot is that animal "language" ability is explicable in behaviourist terms, and that even great apes do not learn language the way we do. Even the famous "water-bird" innovation for duck isn't obviously a leap of symbolic thinking, because Washoe might merely have meant "bird I saw in the water" or somesuch. It looks as though apes just don't have the ability to think in terms of symbols, metaphors, analogies, or relations. Don't get me wrong, I would find it immensely fascinating and just plain cool to converse with an orangutan, even in the limited form that is available, but I think there is clearly a qualitative difference between human language and the expressive abilities of apes.

My point isn't that orangutans and bonobos and dolphins aren't complex and interesting and remarkably intelligent, because they clearly are, but that reason is not the faculty by which we can understand what a chimpanzee does. No ape has ever gone about asking its fellows what the good is, or why exactly they live the way they do; no ape has ever looked at the stars and wept at their beauty; no ape has ever buried its father, with flowers around his neck; no ape has ever observed that the moon is made of green cheese, or told its child that a cow jumped over it; no ape has ever been killed for telling another ape to get out of the light while it drew triangles in the sand. But men did these things scores of thousands of years ago, all over the planet. If man is a beast, he is a miraculous one; otherwise he must be a very different kind of thing.

Miraculous? Perhaps. Though not necessarily in a positive sense.

Additionally, you say he must otherwise be a very different kind of beast. Why is that? Because of this short list of "unique" qualities? They seem downright focused on those few things which appear to be unique; I would say that is the thrust of the post. If we can create similar lists for other animals must they, then, be either miraculous or very different from other beasts?

 

[punkbass2000]

Hmmm...How people act (or can act) as individuals is the biggie. Human nature only comes from within. Because we reason (human nature), we do things that manifest themselves as "planning". Because we want to understand, we take things apart. Because we want/need companionship, we organize into families or groups. Human nature contains the building blocks for higher levels of activity at the social and cultural level. Our human nature allows us to create myriad constructs that can be acted upon, that may or may not actually be useful over time in the world.

An incomplete list might include such things as:
curiosity
patience
ingenuity
persistence
hate
love
reason
adaptability
fertility

Human nature contains all the key traits that have allowed us to succeed (and fail) as a species. Would we be as advanced technolocially as we are without curiosity or persistence? Would we have governments if we didn't need to live in groups? Monogamy and polygamy are just two ways we can satisfy our need for companionship.

Hmm. But how meaningfully can anything be said about humans in general. Or are we looking more at broad social trends and giving a miss to sufficiently small percentages of exceptions.

 

[Ayatollah So]

It's human nature to participate in a culture. It's also human nature to think for oneself. What then is the point of asking "are human beings naturally <x>"?

A lot of branch topics have sprung up here. That's a good thing, 'cause I don't think the official topic has much substance.