4 ms·

No, not always. There were matriarchal societies in ancient times where women had multiple partners. You're looking at thing through the lens of western histo

• remarkEon 9y ago
  >You're looking at thing through the lens of western history. So? As you said, "What does it matter?" Those societies didn't survive. I don't really get how to treat the quip "you're looking at thi[s] through the lens of western history", other than as an attempt do disqualify what's literal fact by saying that it was observed by "westerners." >Besides, what does it matter? We're talking about the future here, not the past. Contraceptive technology isn't going away. I'm never going to understand this sentiment. "It matters" because, like it or not, evolutionary biology is a thing and attempts to subvert it are introduced at our own peril - at least until we actually have total command of controlling said biology.
  • gorkonsine 9y ago
    To claim that those societies didn't survive solely because they weren't monogamous, patriarchal societies is either profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Societies don't survive for many different reasons, usually become some other foreign society with natural advantages (due to their geography) outcompete or conquer them. Go read "guns, germs, and steel". >"It matters" because, like it or not, evolutionary biology is a thing You're missing the point that contraceptive technology is here now, and not going away, so what may have worked in the past is no longer applicable because of this. Contraception changes everything.