Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3945 alt.romance:5541 soc.men:23797 soc.women:29971 soc.singles:73826 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!bluemoon!bmb From: bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous? Message-ID: Date: 24 Nov 90 01:57:07 GMT References: <1990Nov23.015509.14871@massey.ac.nz> Sender: bbs@bluemoon.UUCP Followup-To: sci.bio Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-9980/2/4) Lines: 27 A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > If instinctive behaviour is only vestigial in humans then why do we still > breathe when we are asleep, why do children commonly bond with their > parents, why is sex so important, et cetera. The whole science of > Sociobiology suggests that instinctive behaviour is very important (but > not exclusive of cultural effects). > > Humans are not naturally computer users but the format used by computers > is controlled by "human nature". If computers communicated to us in > binary, we would find this difficult to learn and understand. Chimps are > not naturally American Sign Language users, but they can learn and can > teach it to their children. Dogs are not naturally Seeing Eye Dog > "users" but they can be taught. Horses do not naturally jump 7-foot > fences, but.... 1/ Most animal behaviourists do not consider mechanistic physiological functions to be insticts ( peristalis isn't an instinct either is it?) 2/ The bonding of a child to it's mother is a vestigial instinctive mechanism compared with such complex insticts such as a spider's web building or or complex mating behaviours such a a bowerbird's nest construction. 3/ All of the above examples are of learned behaviours that do not naturally occur. Humans seem to learn a wide range of mating patterns monogamous polygamous polyandrous. Has anyone ever taught a new mating behaviours to (say) a fish? ( A creature with very hard wired mating patterns)