4 ms·

Many of the changes you propose -- all of them, actually -- would tend to make me less happy and less satisfied with my life than I am currently. We may have t

Many of the changes you propose -- all of them, actually -- would tend to make me less happy and less satisfied with my life than I am currently. We may have the capability to do all of these things within 50 years, and some of them much earlier. But I'm skeptical of whether these sorts of cultural "innovations" will see widespread adoption if they don't improve quality of life. We've had the ability as a species to have sex without physical consequences for more than half a century now, and yet most people, once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement. Maybe we're just wired that way.

zanny 13y ago
> and yet most people, once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement. You still aren't accounting for societal and cultural pervasiveness of monogamous relationships. It is so historic and traditional it is, if not taught, experienced from the earliest years of life. I feel like in a society with plenty people would be more generous and "risky" in their interactions with others. So I think we are culturally wired that way, but I'm not sold that we are physically wired for monogamy, and I'd site foreign cultures like the Persians where polygamy was common, even when the primary goal was still rapid population expansion.
rbanffy 13y ago
> once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement Polygamous relationships are, roughly, O(n^2). You may not want to go there. ;-)
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  On "polygamy": I have seen a nice gender-neutral term on LessWrong: "polyamory".
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    "polygamy" is already gender neutral; the gender-specific forms are polygyny (having more than one wife) and polyandry (having more than one husband).
    - loup-vaillant 13y ago
      "Polygyny". I just learned something. And so did my spell checker by the way. "Polygamy" may have become gender neutral in technical circles, but I doubt the general population have caught up yet (though by the look of the relevant Wikipedia pages, they will soon). Also, "polyamory" doesn't have the notion of marriage in it. Maybe that could be a useful distinction.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > "Polygamy" may have become gender neutral in technical circles, but I doubt the general population have caught up yet. The thing is that virtually all polygamy that has existed in the real world is polygyny, so the distinction between that gender-specific form and the general form (as well as any reference to polyandry) is of almost entirely of theoretical/technical/specialist interest. > Also, "polyamory" doesn't have the notion of marriage in it. Maybe that could be a useful distinction. I think it is.

zanny 13y ago

> and yet most people, once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement. You still aren't accounting for societal and cultural pervasiveness of monogamous relationships. It is so historic and traditional it is, if not taught, experienced from the earliest years of life. I feel like in a society with plenty people would be more generous and "risky" in their interactions with others. So I think we are culturally wired that way, but I'm not sold that we are physically wired for monogamy, and I'd site foreign cultures like the Persians where polygamy was common, even when the primary goal was still rapid population expansion.

rbanffy 13y ago

> once they reach a certain age, still seem to derive more satisfaction from a stable, monogamous relationship than any other arrangement Polygamous relationships are, roughly, O(n^2). You may not want to go there. ;-)

loup-vaillant 13y ago
On "polygamy": I have seen a nice gender-neutral term on LessWrong: "polyamory".
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  "polygamy" is already gender neutral; the gender-specific forms are polygyny (having more than one wife) and polyandry (having more than one husband).
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    "Polygyny". I just learned something. And so did my spell checker by the way. "Polygamy" may have become gender neutral in technical circles, but I doubt the general population have caught up yet (though by the look of the relevant Wikipedia pages, they will soon). Also, "polyamory" doesn't have the notion of marriage in it. Maybe that could be a useful distinction.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > "Polygamy" may have become gender neutral in technical circles, but I doubt the general population have caught up yet. The thing is that virtually all polygamy that has existed in the real world is polygyny, so the distinction between that gender-specific form and the general form (as well as any reference to polyandry) is of almost entirely of theoretical/technical/specialist interest. > Also, "polyamory" doesn't have the notion of marriage in it. Maybe that could be a useful distinction. I think it is.