@hoyavenger It's called a retrovirus. A tool used by geneticists. Basicaly it's a virus that has been altered by geneticist to change the DNA of the host isntead of do whatever the virus used to do. They are incredibly useful and have been around for quite a while.
If humans are not instinctually monogamous than why the need for sexual control or territorialism....are these not nesting instincts? Why don't humans run around naked in warm climates? Why aren't neighbors living in one huge communal house of 40 people, as Gorillas would live? The natural tendencies of humans for privacy, for walls, for clothes, and possessions are sending a message to others----stay away from my mate!!!
@riverlioness Hi.As far sending messages to others to stay away from my mate, you'll find the same thing in polygamous animals in the wild.There are a lot of animals who fight for the right to mate with a group or single females, doesn't mean they want to stay with that one mate, just means they are being territorial over that mate/those mates(securing their genes are passed, offspring are bred), then on to the next female!Just like males of the human race.Just my thoughts, no disrepect intended
Ha, ha, well, from your point of view, I can see how the conclusion was drawn. I have personal experience with female jealousy over a male. Women sharing a male and raising young together would literally kill each other. The only alternative to the plan is a bunch of single mothers raising children alone. It's probably not a good idea to have offspring if the urge to roam is strong. Children in two parent households fare better academically.
@riverlioness Yeah I too believe that human children need a mother and a father to raise them. Marriage need not enter the picture though, just two dedicated parents to nurture and raise their offspring.
"Artificial evolution" is adaptation through selective breeding. In the case of humans it could be said to correlate to political agenda environment. So it could be said that humans as a result of political ideology, are for all intensive purposes in a breeding program which sustains that political economic ideology.
Theres a great argument for polygamy being more beneficial for women than man. Imagine a list of five men on the left, five women on the right. They are ranked in order of the quality (health, important survival traits, etc) of their genes from 1-5. In monogomy, man 1 and woman mate, 2 and 2 and so on. If man 1 (who has the best genes) is polygamous, he mates with female 1,2,3, etc. the females with less healthy genes mate with man 1 and their offspring have a better chance of survival.
Well that video said nothing, where was the comparative biological advantages/disadvantages based environmental stresses and needs. Several animal species have monogamous life long relationships, but I think that irrelevant. The sexual biological relationship will always be dictated by environmental stresses and species adaptation will follow.
However, I think there was an underlying implication toward anthropomorphic morals and ethics and not enough science.
Adapt,adapt, adapt - as we cannot control our environment (including man as an integral part of it) we will always have to adapt to new risks. Disease resistence is possibly where genetic change is determinent at the moment so which-ever monogamy or polygamy deliver will be a function of fitness. Fine bye me! Hopefully science can resist the need to meddle - after all the species lives almost everywhere on the planet.
i think that polygamy is an adaptive behavior that if ever the mate is not able to satisfy the needs of the other mate or is infertile, one mate could still get away from that mate and find another one because the main purpose of life is of course, successful perpetuation of your species.
And, if in the future scientists would try to inject that virus to more animals and more people, then it would surely cause a backlash.
not really!we are "NOW" way over populated like a virus!What happens to the host (EARTH)when a virus(HUMANS) takes over?The host dies!I would be more worried about the virus that they inject, is going to have a "28 days later" (zombe movie)affect!
The purpose of life is "LOVING THE PERSON YOUR WITH NO MATTER IF INFERTILE OR CANT SATISFY YOUR NEEDS"! Theres nothing better in life then loving someone NO MATTER WHAT,and them loving you the same way.Not sexual pleasures.anyone can do that.
that may be true. but in an evolutionary perspective... the genes of humans are primitive meaning we still have the same genes since the stone age and it would still take a long long time for our species to evolve.
yes, loving a person is what matters most but if you see it in a scientific way, creatures in general live to perpetuate their own it is just that humans "love" their mate and their children to ensure that they would be safe and their reproduction would be successful.
@bishonenboy or... maybe a Doc could prescribe a drug that would fight what the body wants to do but not the mind. How many times have we heard "I didn't want to." on Jerry Springer shows. Thought of that?
Monogamy is such a useless religious construct that only supresses the natural laws of human beings that have evolved over billions of years. Now we have science being used to solidify religious fantasy. Studies actually show that men in polygamous relationships produce more teststoterone and live longer than single men and both more than monogamous men. There's a reason that over 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce and infidelity is the leading cause - monogamy doesn't work.
That's a generalization just like the monogamy to which you refer. Monogamy works for some people and not for others. Citing scientific studies about testosterone makes you no better than this video, and saying that monogamy doesn't work for ANYBODY, when I bet that you yourself know people who are in monogamous relationships that work for them perfectly well, is absurd.
You're right that is a generalization, I'm sure it works for some - I just don't know anyone I would classify as a monogamous faithful person. There are people that I would guess are, but none of them seem happy and are hypocritical on one level or another about it.
If is it is religion than why do humans have such a revulsion to adultery or as you put it "non-monogamous," and I challenge that belief that men in polygamous relationships live longer, there's far more stress, dealing with a shit load of kids and multiple nagging jealous wives. That divorce rate many love to quote from includes people married multiple times, and finally are you comfortable with a woman you're seeing screwing multiple men, is that natural?
It is nothing like how you describe. That is a projection from your own life experiences.
Sexuality is something which is close at heart for all adult men and women in this world, and for the majority, unless an individual has an exciting and fulfilling sex life, the same individual will become less healthy, less effective and less productive in all other areas of life. Studies have been done to confirm this by numerous heart research scientists.
I see so we should all focus on enriching our sex lives, no matter if it hurts our loved ones. Because that is natural, right? And don't give me this western societies are so closed minded bs, because every society has marriage. Polygamy works at best for men, and the women just endure the either because they don't have a choice or out of religious duties.
This is recognised in many cultures around the world, but most western civilisations have not only ignored but suppressed and indeed even supported subjugation of what is a common sense approach.
Marriage is the natural extension of the family unit, because through evolution, if the man wanted to see his offspring survive he had to provide for the pregnant female. And once born she would care for his young and he would provide for them. The multiple partners (for men) came later, when man realized that if he could provide for many then he could screw many.
Wrong marriage only came about very recently in human history. There was no idea of ownership previously. Tribes existed, communal survival was the only way to survive. The tribe took responsibility for each and every member, relationships within the tribe were poly. That is what nature and evolution favours.
@Kinkspace Thats right everyone shared and shared alike, and screwed alike. What crap! We have tribes now go deep into the amazon and find these communal fucking tribes, go to the Gobi dessert and find these tribes. The idea that everyone fucked around on each other, and that was just dandy is denying very basic human emotions! You've been watching too much of your own porn. Oh and when you find these remote tribes ask if you can fuck their women or men see how welcomed you are.
On the contrary there was always a hierarchy, and protocol based on survival.
How do you jump from that to "communal fucking" tribes? It's a rater big leap, don't you think. I have lived for a while with a tribe, it's not like that at all.The problem here is you are projecting, you see only two sides of the coin, a coin always has three sides. Life is not as black and white as you would like it to be so you can neatly package it up and label it.
Your ideas of ownership of another human being are founded in the political economic system you are accustomed to. You are a product of your environment.
Due to your belief in ownership you demonise all that threatens it. The reality is your fears are illogical, based in insecurities evolved from your environment.
In a different environment those insecurities do not exist. There is far more support and security, everyone has value.
Hardly an environment for "denying human emotions as you suggest in fact quite the opposite. It is your projection and your environment that deny's those basic human emotions being fulfilled.
Humans don't have a revulsion to adultery - they have a revulsion to getting caught...or it wouldn't be the leading cause of divorce.
Adultery according to your dictionary vs according to the bible are 2 different things. Moses's books clearly define adultery as only something that can happen w/ a married woman. A man can have sex w/ 19 women and only commit adultery if 1 of those women was married - according to biblical law. Webster's definition is religously/culturally influenced.
@phaaronthegreat Very well how would you feel if someone you loved cheated on you, how would you feel? I don't care what Webster's definition is, that feeling you have when cheated on is natural where does that feeling come from? People seem to think I'm talking about marriage I'm not. If monogamy is so unnatural then it shouldn't upset us when our partner has sex with others.
I concur, with the overpopulation of humans, we need to focus on quality over quantity of the next generations, thus in my opnion for us monogamy > polygamy
hmm if humans can change human behaviour through virus... imagine the possibilities! is it possible to lose my lazyness! cuz i dont want it! but im to lazy to do something so genetic engenary save me :D
could someone please insert that "virus" into the men´s brains that i fall in love with... cause they seem to need their gens altered abit. always running away, never commiting... would be great to dramatically change their behaviour as well...
Interesting. I hope you let them live happily ever after then and let the other female go. I really long for the day when Jesus returns and you scientist quit playing God with all His creatures.
they dont purposefully have sex with a different mate every single time. They just mate with whoever at whatever time. The female could go to an other mate. the male is the one who became loyal.
Well... I meant drug, not that I wanted to classify "polygamy" as a disease!... I'm neither in favor nor against it. I'm just expressing my view, it's a cool drug, that wants to crave just for a soul-mate and no one else!
Monogamy yes but in this species like many others an alternative exists after many thousands if not millions of generations of evolution - so to get to 2009 both approaches obviously have merit. The question must be what environmental factor(s) dictate which approach is best?
I think men use thier sex as an excuse too often. While some people may have more trouble with commitment than others most can control who they allow themselves to be romantic with.
Consider the fact that some cultures find it acceptable to marry their first cousins, while others would consider it incest. Either way the risk for genetic abnormalities isnt a significantly different. How and why is it that people in some cultures are able to keep from being with their first cousins?
Love is an emotion, and just like any other emotion it can be controlled. However, some people might find it more difficult to control that emotion than others. Much like someone with anger management issues finds it more difficult to gauge their anger. Therefore, people who are monogamous probably have better emotional control, if they have better emotional control that means that they probably have higher emotional intelligence; on average women have higher emotional intelligence than men.
Well... before you were saying that men are only monogamous because they are dragged into it by women, and suggested that it was not natural. If you research emotional intelligence you will see where my argument comes from.
People with higher levels of emotional intelligence tend to be women, and they have characteristics that would probably make it easier for them to remain in a monogamous relationship.
Religion is a terrible thing, it doesnt do any good yet it causes wars, conflicts, discrimination, weird-ass behaviours, etc. My opinion is that we get rid of it as fast as possible.
Religion can be a tool to divide and spread hate, no doubt. But it isn't "the" tool, it is "a" tool.
But religion was a strong component for the Civil Rights movement and charities. The Salvation Army is a Christian organization.
Those fighting slavery used religion as their basis.
Examples you give are true, but you haven't shown that these things wouldn't have happened without religion. Without religion being a cause, it can at most be an inciting factor, not the problem itself.
I don't ignore the good things some religious people do but I dislike their motive (a place in heaven rather than because it is the right thing to do.)
But my point is about wars, religions dehumanize people not of their faith, thereby making it easier for people to murder. (they are enemys of my god, so thou shall not kill doesn't matter anymore.)
I agree with the motive of some - and I despise those who only do good deeds because the "have" to. But for many, it gives them strength to give more.
Have you seen European racial theory of the 1800's and earlier? They used "science" to dehumanize others. Nazis certainly did - they are in part an offshoot of those I mentioned.
Though in one charming theory, apes and orangutans were also debased humans. As were those who weren't white.
People who want to murder will find a way to dehumanize.
A valid point, but as an atheist living in the west in 2009, I am not being dehumanized by science. I am however a potential target of religious extremists.
In Gaza now, if the jews and muslims hadn't been brought up to believe the other group are evil and going to hell, an enemy of their god, it would be much harder for the assholes in charge to convince them to kill each other, If they empathized with one another and could see that we all just human.
Not politics. Religion's role in human evil. And, in fact, some scientists have searched for the genetic component of morality. Some of it is explained by the role of society in human survival.
I'm not saying science dehumanized. I was up against the character count. I mean when people want to kill, they will rationalize a reason to dehumanize.
In Gaza, once again note that one side holds the resources and one side doesn't. Each happens to want control of those resources. Gaza lacks sufficient clean water and arable land, traditional wealth.
An atheist living in many other parts of the world would be under a lot more pressure, btw.
While anti-semitism is reprehensible, it was not only Nazis who hated them - most of Europe did. The issue historically is that Jews have defined themselves as separate from everybody else. Anybody seen as 'other' tends to make themselves a target. They have seen themselves as Jews (history & culture) first and nationality second.
As a group that defined themselves as different - and of higher education and wealth - they were hated by Europeans.
Just responded to something about religion. I myself am an atheist, but the academic in me isn't thrilled with the disconnect between belief (religion is bad) and the lack of support by the arguments used. Dogma is dogma.
But really, I don't really care what people believe.
Fewer receptors for one neuro-chemical in the brain = promiscuity is the idea.
An idea resulting from genetic modification AFTER post-birth.
You have every right to be aggitated, but you should really direct it appropriately.
The next step is the gender modification of people. Imagine it now - terrorist factions warring by stabbing people in the head, turning hetero's homo and homo's hetero, and some in between.
Less of the "right" brain hardware was probably more correct.
Promiscuity is merely another approach. It doesn't necessarily improve a species, merely produce more genetic combinations. But by not staying together, the young are not protected in their developing years. This approach favors those who develop faster, though not necessarily those who develop more and stronger abilities.
Agree, in humans the one that is better equipped mentally is the one that is going to survive. Physical fitness is no longer a factor (although it helps)
Promiscuity ensures that the your genes gets combined with the best possible candidate because it goes hand in hand with the ability to raise an income. (mental fitness)
Or, to say it in a simple way, the winner f***s the prom queen and the loser ends up on eHarmony
You misunderstood. Though you did make a viable analogy regarding fitness. Due to "intelligence" overriding the better judgement of instincts, a woman is just as likely to have children with a "cave man" as a "modern man". How is that? If both can talk, and both can walk - the better liar wins.
And promiscuity does not ensure you attain the best candidate, it only makes attaining a candidate more likely.
Exactly, the better liar (or the smartest) gets the grand price
It's up to the participants to make a wise choice
On the other topic, promiscuity does not necessarily means one night stand
Women are instinctively more attracted by intelligence, especially if it produces tangible results (lifestyle), and a man who has the resources to provide for more than one woman (cultural issues aside) has better chance to get better offsprings and to raise the results of his hard work
Well you can't learn Calculus without learning simple multiplication. Which is the same as us not being able to learn about the human brain without figuring out the brain functions of a more basic brain. This is a stepping stone to get us to the big picture.
he actually did investigate the other one first and by the looks of it got rejected. maybe the experiment was repeated and had better results but from this it just looks like he sided with the one he knew would give it up.
so wait, what good does it do to soak up these 'love cocktails'? The polygamous or so called 'promiscuous one' is reproducing at a faster rate, and gets the same amount of pleasure as a monogamous rodent vole would.
So what exactly do these receptors do? Somehow gives pleasure when it's with the same vole?
I am student of biology and I am learning etology at the moment. I was learning exactly about Microtus ochrogaster and Mycrotus pennsylvanicus. Is it just luck?
these results with citing only one field test is arbitrary. if they continued to do the same test in a larger forum (ie. 5 random females to his 1 former mate), that would yield more promising results in his findings.
your an idiot, this is just showing that some people may have genetically inherited less receptors, and it is only a theory. If you listened closely it isnt because of a virus, the virus was man made. At least know what your talking about before making your moronic comments.
yea i gathered that... which is kind of scary on its own but i wont even get into that.
so assuming the people researching this also believe in evolution (or abiogenesis for those who think the name change made a difference. lol) how did anything evolve receptors to make it monogamous? wouldn't that inhibit further "evolution"?
seems to me the "evidence" here's only use would be to claim that monogamy stems from a viral infection to humanity years ago, no?
i dont think thats necessarily what they are claiming. i mean its possible but i think it is more likely that some people just happened to evolve more receptors as opposed to others. in the real world, outside of a lab, i dont think a virus would have caused this.
i was only suggesting it would have been caused by a virus because i see no reason why the people believing evolution would think that we developed this dna that produces receptors for bonding with one mate.
well, maybe you're right. but if it wasn't caused by a virus, it could have been brought about by a need for survival of our species (a man staying with one woman and the kids and providing for them, while the mother nourishes). evolution most of the time boils down to common sense and problem solving :]
Guys! Don't you ever get injected! Avoid those things!
Maergensargoth 3 weeks ago
As interesting as this seems, one incident is hardly evidence.
541099 11 months ago
the question....do you want real love or some TEST TUBE FANTASY?
StevenEscolar 1 year ago
in my defense....the guy vole first went to the other female and ...only...only when she said no...he returned back :).
subbuktek 1 year ago 4
genetic code:
GS452UHJG0KPBZ42TE7S38GV689S24345SUHIJGT07UA67G897HV1Z2563NL233D6UI9978GCW4312F04GYH78GWH73G89MFZAE25D7490RNSYC74A6S48R9OYH8BUNDWG672E67Y43U894T5TR3RGEHY82R3J89HTRGMXSHZSGHFDIOWSHCSINCHFHRGE7943TH89RG89HFJDSW89HE42R10EHFMHZAILWOFPT674R78TFGYH2YE01PIQHDGHFMZLAIQP20URUYHF785F786845F4T5F78457YJ4T5F1AQZ0OMKB7YWRERY687HY4T5FY45DJT67H1AQZT674TF7YH45RTF0OMIK7YT67H45F6G67G8RWEY8T43G781AT67H67YJ4T5FPLMDR67HTRRXD7HT6432WW435F0821073SZ7H43T725TFM67T5H3DAU34T67QUHRGI45YW0WTR7CF67E1TG7TR3YF9W3
RAYtheIMAN 1 year ago
so what kind of virus was injected?
hoyavenger 1 year ago
@hoyavenger It's called a retrovirus. A tool used by geneticists. Basicaly it's a virus that has been altered by geneticist to change the DNA of the host isntead of do whatever the virus used to do. They are incredibly useful and have been around for quite a while.
craigmak 7 months ago
If humans are not instinctually monogamous than why the need for sexual control or territorialism....are these not nesting instincts? Why don't humans run around naked in warm climates? Why aren't neighbors living in one huge communal house of 40 people, as Gorillas would live? The natural tendencies of humans for privacy, for walls, for clothes, and possessions are sending a message to others----stay away from my mate!!!
riverlioness 1 year ago
@riverlioness Hi.As far sending messages to others to stay away from my mate, you'll find the same thing in polygamous animals in the wild.There are a lot of animals who fight for the right to mate with a group or single females, doesn't mean they want to stay with that one mate, just means they are being territorial over that mate/those mates(securing their genes are passed, offspring are bred), then on to the next female!Just like males of the human race.Just my thoughts, no disrepect intended
fourtywpm 1 year ago 2
@fourtywpm
Ha, ha, well, from your point of view, I can see how the conclusion was drawn. I have personal experience with female jealousy over a male. Women sharing a male and raising young together would literally kill each other. The only alternative to the plan is a bunch of single mothers raising children alone. It's probably not a good idea to have offspring if the urge to roam is strong. Children in two parent households fare better academically.
riverlioness 1 year ago
@riverlioness Yeah I too believe that human children need a mother and a father to raise them. Marriage need not enter the picture though, just two dedicated parents to nurture and raise their offspring.
fourtywpm 1 year ago
@fourtywpm I love your perception on the subject. No sarcasm either im serious.
Kyofighter93 1 year ago
Fascinating. Also scary how it may be that easy to "re-program" using a virus.... population engineering anyone?
khyar 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwin observed both "Evolution" and "Artificial Evolution".
"Evolution" is a result of the need to adapt to environment to survive, the survival of the fittest. As observed in Darwins finches.
Artificial Evolution is the manipulation of a species. Darwin observed this in domesticated species such as pigeons, sheep, dogs etc.
cont...
Kinkspace 2 years ago
"Artificial evolution" is adaptation through selective breeding. In the case of humans it could be said to correlate to political agenda environment. So it could be said that humans as a result of political ideology, are for all intensive purposes in a breeding program which sustains that political economic ideology.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Theres a great argument for polygamy being more beneficial for women than man. Imagine a list of five men on the left, five women on the right. They are ranked in order of the quality (health, important survival traits, etc) of their genes from 1-5. In monogomy, man 1 and woman mate, 2 and 2 and so on. If man 1 (who has the best genes) is polygamous, he mates with female 1,2,3, etc. the females with less healthy genes mate with man 1 and their offspring have a better chance of survival.
YouCouldGetBodied 2 years ago
Bravo!! now if we only do that to human males, problem solved!
No more male sluts around ruining everyone's life.
pumehana99 2 years ago
Comment removed
pumehana99 2 years ago
Comment removed
0candy 2 years ago
"rather then ditching them and running off to the next hot slut"
This is a anthropomorphizing.
Humans practiced polygamy for several thousand years until Christianity encouraged polygamy.
What if society formed smaller village like community where all families shared in parenting duties of neighboring families?
Did you know Eskimo culture allows adult partners to swap?
mattghtpa 2 years ago
Comment removed
0candy 2 years ago
Check out my video Diversify. It's right up your alley.
shockingpinks 2 years ago
Well that video said nothing, where was the comparative biological advantages/disadvantages based environmental stresses and needs. Several animal species have monogamous life long relationships, but I think that irrelevant. The sexual biological relationship will always be dictated by environmental stresses and species adaptation will follow.
However, I think there was an underlying implication toward anthropomorphic morals and ethics and not enough science.
mattghtpa 3 years ago
Comment removed
0candy 2 years ago
Adapt,adapt, adapt - as we cannot control our environment (including man as an integral part of it) we will always have to adapt to new risks. Disease resistence is possibly where genetic change is determinent at the moment so which-ever monogamy or polygamy deliver will be a function of fitness. Fine bye me! Hopefully science can resist the need to meddle - after all the species lives almost everywhere on the planet.
liocarcinus 3 years ago 2
i think that polygamy is an adaptive behavior that if ever the mate is not able to satisfy the needs of the other mate or is infertile, one mate could still get away from that mate and find another one because the main purpose of life is of course, successful perpetuation of your species.
And, if in the future scientists would try to inject that virus to more animals and more people, then it would surely cause a backlash.
whatanameohyeah 3 years ago
not really!we are "NOW" way over populated like a virus!What happens to the host (EARTH)when a virus(HUMANS) takes over?The host dies!I would be more worried about the virus that they inject, is going to have a "28 days later" (zombe movie)affect!
The purpose of life is "LOVING THE PERSON YOUR WITH NO MATTER IF INFERTILE OR CANT SATISFY YOUR NEEDS"! Theres nothing better in life then loving someone NO MATTER WHAT,and them loving you the same way.Not sexual pleasures.anyone can do that.
21cglock 3 years ago
that may be true. but in an evolutionary perspective... the genes of humans are primitive meaning we still have the same genes since the stone age and it would still take a long long time for our species to evolve.
yes, loving a person is what matters most but if you see it in a scientific way, creatures in general live to perpetuate their own it is just that humans "love" their mate and their children to ensure that they would be safe and their reproduction would be successful.
whatanameohyeah 3 years ago
Get ready for reprogramming when you don't conform to societies expectations. Not monogamous?? We have a drug for that!
bishonenboy 3 years ago 9
@bishonenboy or... maybe a Doc could prescribe a drug that would fight what the body wants to do but not the mind. How many times have we heard "I didn't want to." on Jerry Springer shows. Thought of that?
mykol13v 1 year ago
My ex boyfriend needs this, lol
Nessule 3 years ago
My father not only lacks the monogamy gene but would probably die from shock after being injected with a monogamy serum.
LynRuiz 3 years ago 2
Our tax dollars at work.
Humans are rational animals are instinctual (duh). Test all the rats you want and sponge up grant money that could be used for better things.
leafmealoan 3 years ago
Monogamy is such a useless religious construct that only supresses the natural laws of human beings that have evolved over billions of years. Now we have science being used to solidify religious fantasy. Studies actually show that men in polygamous relationships produce more teststoterone and live longer than single men and both more than monogamous men. There's a reason that over 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce and infidelity is the leading cause - monogamy doesn't work.
phaaronthegreat 3 years ago
That's a generalization just like the monogamy to which you refer. Monogamy works for some people and not for others. Citing scientific studies about testosterone makes you no better than this video, and saying that monogamy doesn't work for ANYBODY, when I bet that you yourself know people who are in monogamous relationships that work for them perfectly well, is absurd.
Conclusion: Bash the system, not the concept.
SerenitysCat 3 years ago
You're right that is a generalization, I'm sure it works for some - I just don't know anyone I would classify as a monogamous faithful person. There are people that I would guess are, but none of them seem happy and are hypocritical on one level or another about it.
phaaronthegreat 3 years ago
If is it is religion than why do humans have such a revulsion to adultery or as you put it "non-monogamous," and I challenge that belief that men in polygamous relationships live longer, there's far more stress, dealing with a shit load of kids and multiple nagging jealous wives. That divorce rate many love to quote from includes people married multiple times, and finally are you comfortable with a woman you're seeing screwing multiple men, is that natural?
brick4sale 2 years ago
It is nothing like how you describe. That is a projection from your own life experiences.
Sexuality is something which is close at heart for all adult men and women in this world, and for the majority, unless an individual has an exciting and fulfilling sex life, the same individual will become less healthy, less effective and less productive in all other areas of life. Studies have been done to confirm this by numerous heart research scientists.
cont...
Kinkspace 2 years ago
I see so we should all focus on enriching our sex lives, no matter if it hurts our loved ones. Because that is natural, right? And don't give me this western societies are so closed minded bs, because every society has marriage. Polygamy works at best for men, and the women just endure the either because they don't have a choice or out of religious duties.
brick4sale 2 years ago
This is recognised in many cultures around the world, but most western civilisations have not only ignored but suppressed and indeed even supported subjugation of what is a common sense approach.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Marriage is the natural extension of the family unit, because through evolution, if the man wanted to see his offspring survive he had to provide for the pregnant female. And once born she would care for his young and he would provide for them. The multiple partners (for men) came later, when man realized that if he could provide for many then he could screw many.
brick4sale 2 years ago
Wrong marriage only came about very recently in human history. There was no idea of ownership previously. Tribes existed, communal survival was the only way to survive. The tribe took responsibility for each and every member, relationships within the tribe were poly. That is what nature and evolution favours.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
@Kinkspace Thats right everyone shared and shared alike, and screwed alike. What crap! We have tribes now go deep into the amazon and find these communal fucking tribes, go to the Gobi dessert and find these tribes. The idea that everyone fucked around on each other, and that was just dandy is denying very basic human emotions! You've been watching too much of your own porn. Oh and when you find these remote tribes ask if you can fuck their women or men see how welcomed you are.
brick4sale 2 years ago
On the contrary there was always a hierarchy, and protocol based on survival.
How do you jump from that to "communal fucking" tribes? It's a rater big leap, don't you think. I have lived for a while with a tribe, it's not like that at all.The problem here is you are projecting, you see only two sides of the coin, a coin always has three sides. Life is not as black and white as you would like it to be so you can neatly package it up and label it.
cont...
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Wasn't your website on current tv?
brick4sale 2 years ago
Not to my knowledge, do you have a clip so I can confirm or deny? I have never heard of current tv???
Kinkspace 2 years ago
I just Google, good to see we are getting about :)
But no we were not featured alas it was a comment I made here on a CNN report nothing more.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Your ideas of ownership of another human being are founded in the political economic system you are accustomed to. You are a product of your environment.
Due to your belief in ownership you demonise all that threatens it. The reality is your fears are illogical, based in insecurities evolved from your environment.
In a different environment those insecurities do not exist. There is far more support and security, everyone has value.
cont...
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Hardly an environment for "denying human emotions as you suggest in fact quite the opposite. It is your projection and your environment that deny's those basic human emotions being fulfilled.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Humans don't have a revulsion to adultery - they have a revulsion to getting caught...or it wouldn't be the leading cause of divorce.
Adultery according to your dictionary vs according to the bible are 2 different things. Moses's books clearly define adultery as only something that can happen w/ a married woman. A man can have sex w/ 19 women and only commit adultery if 1 of those women was married - according to biblical law. Webster's definition is religously/culturally influenced.
phaaronthegreat 2 years ago
@phaaronthegreat Very well how would you feel if someone you loved cheated on you, how would you feel? I don't care what Webster's definition is, that feeling you have when cheated on is natural where does that feeling come from? People seem to think I'm talking about marriage I'm not. If monogamy is so unnatural then it shouldn't upset us when our partner has sex with others.
brick4sale 2 years ago
we ned to do this to people
sandhilldiva 3 years ago
I concur, with the overpopulation of humans, we need to focus on quality over quantity of the next generations, thus in my opnion for us monogamy > polygamy
0candy 2 years ago
WTH no cuddling
silencia08 3 years ago
interesting study.
CelticDragon026 3 years ago
god this kept freezin and missing parts, i realy wanted to listen to it. where else can i watch it
883chick 3 years ago
great video! seriously i mean that honestly.. nicely done.. i think if i had more time i could watch it over and over again :]
Chick6517 3 years ago
hmm if humans can change human behaviour through virus... imagine the possibilities! is it possible to lose my lazyness! cuz i dont want it! but im to lazy to do something so genetic engenary save me :D
VanSneiwder 3 years ago 3
if they control human life with viruses say goodbye to freedom.
Ok maybe we all agree we wish we can get rid of criminal genes but monogamy? religion? leave them alone, they are a choice.
mockingarab 3 years ago
ah.
could someone please insert that "virus" into the men´s brains that i fall in love with... cause they seem to need their gens altered abit. always running away, never commiting... would be great to dramatically change their behaviour as well...
looksi 3 years ago
maybe its not them, its you
oldman90914 3 years ago
most likely to be true ;) *
looksi 3 years ago
Interesting. I hope you let them live happily ever after then and let the other female go. I really long for the day when Jesus returns and you scientist quit playing God with all His creatures.
mammal46 3 years ago
Sure thing. Right after we figure out what gene makes people believe in religion.
poiht87hfg 3 years ago
haha seriously. Then create a virus to block those religion receptors. Would work wonders on those damn mormons
mariobeans 3 years ago 3
Who is God? and who made him?
mockingarab 3 years ago
an imaginary friend. people.
OmnipotentO 3 years ago
Did anyone else think that the brain looks like a interesting kind of dildo?
fku2b 3 years ago
hold on:
why did the genetically unaltered female not attack the old lover? they did not change her so presumably she would reject him
sampsonoff 3 years ago 2
they dont purposefully have sex with a different mate every single time. They just mate with whoever at whatever time. The female could go to an other mate. the male is the one who became loyal.
mambi 3 years ago
They have viruses that can alter that stuff? Wow crazy.
Icix1 3 years ago
Wow.. A new medicine that can stop men and women from having multiple sex-partners... A revolutionary thought indeed!
codename006 3 years ago
medicine? why is it a disease? who classified as such?
mockingarab 3 years ago
Well... I meant drug, not that I wanted to classify "polygamy" as a disease!... I'm neither in favor nor against it. I'm just expressing my view, it's a cool drug, that wants to crave just for a soul-mate and no one else!
codename006 3 years ago
Monogamy is against god and nature.
TheWiccanBitch 3 years ago
No it's not! Who told you that?
codename006 3 years ago
lol retarded wiccan bitch
mambi 3 years ago
There's monogamy in nature. Quite a few animals. And the best example is a rodent. The Beaver=~)
sXeXryanX 3 years ago
Monogamy yes but in this species like many others an alternative exists after many thousands if not millions of generations of evolution - so to get to 2009 both approaches obviously have merit. The question must be what environmental factor(s) dictate which approach is best?
liocarcinus 3 years ago
fck Monogamy. If not because women want it so bad men would never ask for it.
Because of that the laws tie men with tough Financial burdens to women.
In court Women almost always win custody, alimony and sky high child support.
mockingarab 3 years ago
hahaha! what's made you so angry??
arequipa1 3 years ago
the fact that Monogamy is forced on us by Laws mostly created by women.
I love women but common, we can live just fine without getting married.
mockingarab 3 years ago
I lol'd at your "laws mostly created by women"
Octahoney 3 years ago 2
I think men use thier sex as an excuse too often. While some people may have more trouble with commitment than others most can control who they allow themselves to be romantic with.
Consider the fact that some cultures find it acceptable to marry their first cousins, while others would consider it incest. Either way the risk for genetic abnormalities isnt a significantly different. How and why is it that people in some cultures are able to keep from being with their first cousins?
msmindspeak 3 years ago
Love is an emotion, and just like any other emotion it can be controlled. However, some people might find it more difficult to control that emotion than others. Much like someone with anger management issues finds it more difficult to gauge their anger. Therefore, people who are monogamous probably have better emotional control, if they have better emotional control that means that they probably have higher emotional intelligence; on average women have higher emotional intelligence than men.
msmindspeak 3 years ago
Emotional Intelligence? WTF did that come from?
mockingarab 3 years ago
I'm no scientist, but I don't think that emotional intelligence is completely improbable, especially when you consider that fact that it's inherited.
Also, it might be easier to see where my arguement came from if you read the comment it was responding to.
msmindspeak 3 years ago
What are your arguments for saying "people who are monogamous probably have better emotional control"?
MrMusicDK 3 years ago 3
Well... before you were saying that men are only monogamous because they are dragged into it by women, and suggested that it was not natural. If you research emotional intelligence you will see where my argument comes from.
People with higher levels of emotional intelligence tend to be women, and they have characteristics that would probably make it easier for them to remain in a monogamous relationship.
msmindspeak 3 years ago
this is implying i'm supposed to be a guy.
tangycandy 3 years ago
Using viruses to change an animal's behavior! *shudder in fear*
myjhien 3 years ago 2
amazing, imagine the application to humans.
alexieleon 3 years ago 5
love potion
nnoott1989 3 years ago
I always thought voles were kinda' cute, unless they are destroying your lawn.
dragonamt 3 years ago
cool
Mike07P 3 years ago
"Like some people"?!
A little bias there huh? how about like "Most people"
Hunterkirk 3 years ago
nice video,plese subbscribe to Ryno222888
ryno222888 3 years ago
Religion is a terrible thing, it doesnt do any good yet it causes wars, conflicts, discrimination, weird-ass behaviours, etc. My opinion is that we get rid of it as fast as possible.
newphew92 3 years ago
Because people wouldn't have war, conflict, discrimination, or weird-ass behavior without religion?
Religion isn't really a cause - since people have used it to argue against discrimination, war, etc.
Religion has merely been used as an excuse. Remove it and the real causes still exist. Other excuses will be used.
People have used religion as a reason for charity, community, environmentalism, etc.
It isn't good or bad by itself.
recoil53 3 years ago 2
WEll, look at it like this:
The holocaust: 6 million people died. why? BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWISH
Suicide bombings: ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
and you can go on witht the list.
newphew92 3 years ago
And this comment came from??? this is a video of rodents...
Alwiii123 3 years ago
Kind of superficial. Six million were also killed that weren't Jewish.
Nazis were anti-Semite, but weren't religious.
ETA and IRA kill over land, religion not really being a factor (Protestants were Scottish settlers brought over by the British).
Muslim bombers are also generally poor and the arguments used show they want more prosperity.
As I said, religion is used as an excuse, but is hardly the cause. The examples you gave hardly constitute a counterargument.
recoil53 3 years ago
religion is the tool used to divide and spread hate.
neptune60 3 years ago 2
Religion can be a tool to divide and spread hate, no doubt. But it isn't "the" tool, it is "a" tool.
But religion was a strong component for the Civil Rights movement and charities. The Salvation Army is a Christian organization.
Those fighting slavery used religion as their basis.
Examples you give are true, but you haven't shown that these things wouldn't have happened without religion. Without religion being a cause, it can at most be an inciting factor, not the problem itself.
recoil53 3 years ago
I don't ignore the good things some religious people do but I dislike their motive (a place in heaven rather than because it is the right thing to do.)
But my point is about wars, religions dehumanize people not of their faith, thereby making it easier for people to murder. (they are enemys of my god, so thou shall not kill doesn't matter anymore.)
neptune60 3 years ago
I agree with the motive of some - and I despise those who only do good deeds because the "have" to. But for many, it gives them strength to give more.
Have you seen European racial theory of the 1800's and earlier? They used "science" to dehumanize others. Nazis certainly did - they are in part an offshoot of those I mentioned.
Though in one charming theory, apes and orangutans were also debased humans. As were those who weren't white.
People who want to murder will find a way to dehumanize.
recoil53 3 years ago
A valid point, but as an atheist living in the west in 2009, I am not being dehumanized by science. I am however a potential target of religious extremists.
In Gaza now, if the jews and muslims hadn't been brought up to believe the other group are evil and going to hell, an enemy of their god, it would be much harder for the assholes in charge to convince them to kill each other, If they empathized with one another and could see that we all just human.
neptune60 3 years ago
How did politics get in a science vlog?
AJSensei 3 years ago 5
Ask the theists, they started it hahaha
neptune60 3 years ago
Not politics. Religion's role in human evil. And, in fact, some scientists have searched for the genetic component of morality. Some of it is explained by the role of society in human survival.
recoil53 3 years ago
I'm not saying science dehumanized. I was up against the character count. I mean when people want to kill, they will rationalize a reason to dehumanize.
In Gaza, once again note that one side holds the resources and one side doesn't. Each happens to want control of those resources. Gaza lacks sufficient clean water and arable land, traditional wealth.
An atheist living in many other parts of the world would be under a lot more pressure, btw.
recoil53 3 years ago
While anti-semitism is reprehensible, it was not only Nazis who hated them - most of Europe did. The issue historically is that Jews have defined themselves as separate from everybody else. Anybody seen as 'other' tends to make themselves a target. They have seen themselves as Jews (history & culture) first and nationality second.
As a group that defined themselves as different - and of higher education and wealth - they were hated by Europeans.
recoil53 3 years ago
How did you guy's get to this topic after watching voles fuck?
carmie1818 3 years ago 2
Just responded to something about religion. I myself am an atheist, but the academic in me isn't thrilled with the disconnect between belief (religion is bad) and the lack of support by the arguments used. Dogma is dogma.
But really, I don't really care what people believe.
recoil53 3 years ago 2
I agree...and I also think these voles fuck way too much.
carmie1818 3 years ago
stupid people don't give a shit because they don't understand.
lol what else is new? they fuck each other and live off the system with their 5 kids.
washaway 3 years ago
American bigotry sold as science
Less Brain = Promiscuity
What's next?, cutting the rat's testicles will cool him down?
peppeddu 3 years ago
Fewer receptors for one neuro-chemical in the brain = promiscuity is the idea.
An idea resulting from genetic modification AFTER post-birth.
You have every right to be aggitated, but you should really direct it appropriately.
The next step is the gender modification of people. Imagine it now - terrorist factions warring by stabbing people in the head, turning hetero's homo and homo's hetero, and some in between.
stmk0 3 years ago
That's another possibility but my point is another.
Monogamy is just an American concept and value, and, as such I respect it.
But when someone try to turn it into a science it reminds me of the old "doctors" that used to say that masturbation will make you blind.
The message here is clear:
Less brain hardware = polygamy
Evolution dictates that promiscuity improves the species, so, how do you know that that rodent:
- Has more hardware in other areas?
- Has not chosen that female by mistake?
peppeddu 3 years ago
Less of the "right" brain hardware was probably more correct.
Promiscuity is merely another approach. It doesn't necessarily improve a species, merely produce more genetic combinations. But by not staying together, the young are not protected in their developing years. This approach favors those who develop faster, though not necessarily those who develop more and stronger abilities.
Each has a lower ceiling, but are more numerous.
Just different approaches.
recoil53 3 years ago
Evolution dictates survival of the fitest all things being equal. In humans, intelligence negates any equality.
Promiscuity is not a utility of evolution. It is a utility for passing no one's own blood line regardless of fitness.
stmk0 3 years ago
Agree, in humans the one that is better equipped mentally is the one that is going to survive. Physical fitness is no longer a factor (although it helps)
Promiscuity ensures that the your genes gets combined with the best possible candidate because it goes hand in hand with the ability to raise an income. (mental fitness)
Or, to say it in a simple way, the winner f***s the prom queen and the loser ends up on eHarmony
peppeddu 3 years ago 3
You misunderstood. Though you did make a viable analogy regarding fitness. Due to "intelligence" overriding the better judgement of instincts, a woman is just as likely to have children with a "cave man" as a "modern man". How is that? If both can talk, and both can walk - the better liar wins.
And promiscuity does not ensure you attain the best candidate, it only makes attaining a candidate more likely.
stmk0 3 years ago
> the better liar wins
Exactly, the better liar (or the smartest) gets the grand price
It's up to the participants to make a wise choice
On the other topic, promiscuity does not necessarily means one night stand
Women are instinctively more attracted by intelligence, especially if it produces tangible results (lifestyle), and a man who has the resources to provide for more than one woman (cultural issues aside) has better chance to get better offsprings and to raise the results of his hard work
peppeddu 3 years ago
lmao dude
diddykongfu 3 years ago
Do they have sex?
Turbojacob 3 years ago
haha so there's a virus that gives you one-gina.
anut5 3 years ago
they should insert this gene into black males.
lol I'm just kidding
jkl1234567890 3 years ago
bondage! rofl
knightdrako 3 years ago
Well you can't learn Calculus without learning simple multiplication. Which is the same as us not being able to learn about the human brain without figuring out the brain functions of a more basic brain. This is a stepping stone to get us to the big picture.
BoXeR204 3 years ago 2
being injected with a virus hardly seems like a good idea. ... let alone one that gives you a disease known as one-gina
n0md4me 3 years ago
I'm not sure whether this is sarcastic or serious.
HisLordshipTheOwl 3 years ago
wow they should sell that in pill form to give it to cheaters
lp4ju 3 years ago
he actually did investigate the other one first and by the looks of it got rejected. maybe the experiment was repeated and had better results but from this it just looks like he sided with the one he knew would give it up.
justforwatchingcraps 3 years ago
wow! this is incredible my boyfriend needs a little of OXYTOCIN.
marilynrolonrivera 3 years ago
lol
maXrUm 3 years ago
more research should go into oxytocin. it's an interesting hormone.
OmnipotentO 3 years ago
I agree with sheikhbond xD
BishStoleMuhYoshi 3 years ago
they should give that virus to married couples at the ceremony. that way there will be lesser troubled kids
sheikhbond 3 years ago
i agree!!
only of course if more tests are carried out first to prove this.
anamaniac68 3 years ago
you think no troubled kids come from happy families? lmao! you need some cultural classes!
DanTheMan9886 3 years ago
i said there would be lesser troubled kids, not no troubled kids at all. you need some critical reading classes
sheikhbond 3 years ago
so wait, what good does it do to soak up these 'love cocktails'? The polygamous or so called 'promiscuous one' is reproducing at a faster rate, and gets the same amount of pleasure as a monogamous rodent vole would.
So what exactly do these receptors do? Somehow gives pleasure when it's with the same vole?
legacy0100 3 years ago
chemicals! duuh
VanSneiwder 3 years ago
That wasn't what I was asking
legacy0100 3 years ago
This doesn't prove anything. There better have been more experiments than that.
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 years ago
very nice :D
LogicalSanity 3 years ago
Poor vole, I think she was happier with less receptors :)
zgbivana 3 years ago 2
I am student of biology and I am learning etology at the moment. I was learning exactly about Microtus ochrogaster and Mycrotus pennsylvanicus. Is it just luck?
wexforfilms 3 years ago
Glorified animal testing! hooray for national geographic!
doffy1 3 years ago
these results with citing only one field test is arbitrary. if they continued to do the same test in a larger forum (ie. 5 random females to his 1 former mate), that would yield more promising results in his findings.
interesting, nonetheless.
FundedByTheMob 3 years ago
why do the weird deciding game that doesn't produce acurate data. when you could simply observe what happened after mating.
TigerSlashX 3 years ago
Peter Coyote!
patjshaz 3 years ago
this is good for cheating husbands XD
Aaronkills10 3 years ago
lol, like some humans
Gilgamesh417 3 years ago
Shows that love is a sickness ;)
SlashDotDash121 3 years ago
haha soon there will be ppl wanting to use this to try and change gay peoples lifestyle i bet.
parents will be useing this on there kids when there born or something to try and keep there kids straight, idk jsut a thought
oldladykillaz 3 years ago
That scenario was completely compromised. When the vole approached the first "temptress" female, I could swear I heard him say "giggity goo".
carmie1818 3 years ago 3
hot
cholikepiche 3 years ago
their nearly identical cousin?
what makes them any different?
maybe whores are just nearly identical cousins of the human species... ooooo hahahaha
scjason420 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahaha first we came from monkeys... and now we are monogamous (in some cultures, only, mind you haha) because of a virus? give me a break.
why don't they research something that matters at nat. geo instead of this garbage and spikey cat penises.
scjason420 3 years ago
your an idiot, this is just showing that some people may have genetically inherited less receptors, and it is only a theory. If you listened closely it isnt because of a virus, the virus was man made. At least know what your talking about before making your moronic comments.
lninez9 3 years ago 3
well if YOU listened closely it actually said he turned to a virus but sure ok he made it... great.
still, explain to me what use this has?
scjason420 3 years ago
knowledge!
cheddyrod 3 years ago
The virus he used was for inserting DNA into the vole's genome and thus, allowing all this to happen.
weezcake 3 years ago
yea i gathered that... which is kind of scary on its own but i wont even get into that.
so assuming the people researching this also believe in evolution (or abiogenesis for those who think the name change made a difference. lol) how did anything evolve receptors to make it monogamous? wouldn't that inhibit further "evolution"?
seems to me the "evidence" here's only use would be to claim that monogamy stems from a viral infection to humanity years ago, no?
scjason420 3 years ago
i dont think thats necessarily what they are claiming. i mean its possible but i think it is more likely that some people just happened to evolve more receptors as opposed to others. in the real world, outside of a lab, i dont think a virus would have caused this.
maXrUm 3 years ago
i was only suggesting it would have been caused by a virus because i see no reason why the people believing evolution would think that we developed this dna that produces receptors for bonding with one mate.
seems like they have a double standard here.
scjason420 3 years ago
well, maybe you're right. but if it wasn't caused by a virus, it could have been brought about by a need for survival of our species (a man staying with one woman and the kids and providing for them, while the mother nourishes). evolution most of the time boils down to common sense and problem solving :]
maXrUm 3 years ago