Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3697 alt.romance:5179 soc.men:23535 soc.women:29613 soc.singles:71871
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <4081@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 25 Oct 90 07:32:28 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>
Followup-To: alt.romance
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 24

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
> Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
> be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
> With the diversity of relationship styles in modern America, I have
> begun to wonder what man's true nature really is.

What makes you think "man" *has* a single "true nature"?
Clearly, given the range of human sexual and social behaviour,
there are a lot of ways people can live and still maintain some
kind of society (not necessarily a pleasant one).
Human nature is to be capable of living in _any_ of these ways.

Now it is certainly possible to ask optimality questions:  "given
the following material conditions and cultural traditions, which
way(s) of living minimize pain/maximize reproductive success/are
evolutionarily stable strategies/are local game-theoretic optima/
minimize the spread of disease/best encourage artistic creativity/
are most in accord with Reason/...".  Does any of those questions
fit your notion of "true nature"?

Remember, the Holocaust was in full accordance with man's true
nature.  So is the music of Bach.
-- 
Fear most of all to be in error.	-- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.