Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4033 alt.romance:5616 soc.men:23989 soc.women:30125 soc.singles:74230
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!jarthur!uunet!microsoft!rodvan
From: rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Summary: bogus biology <-:
Message-ID: <59461@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 90 21:59:02 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <15490@netcom.UUCP> <1990Nov23.015509.14871@massey.ac.nz>
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 45

In article <1990Nov23.015509.14871@massey.ac.nz>, 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

This is bogus -- breathing is not instinctual, but is controlled in the
autonomic nervous system via utterly explicable biochemical homeostatic
feedback loops.  There's nothing "instinctual" about it, and you can 
test this out for yourself while awake: hyperventilate.  Do it until
you can't stop.  At this point you've simply taken one element out of 
the primary biochemical feedback loop for respiration -- CO2.  Now,
you can restart the loop via one of two ways: (1) the biological 
failsafe -- you hyperventilate until you're exausted, at which point
you lose consciousness and stop breathing long enough for the CO2
concentration to build back up to homeostatic levels; (2) put a paper
bag over your face -- the CO2 you exhale is re-inhaled from the bag, 
concentrations build back up to homeostatic levels, and you're cool
again.  (This is what happens when you get a OpSysAnalyst on the net <-;)

As for the "bonding" of children to their parents, it's very different
from the "bonding" of a duckling to the first critter it sees.  The 
duckling bonds spontaneously -- there's no discrimination.  But children
can "un-bond" should they determine the bond is not in their best
interests (okay, that's not what's going through their minds, but only
because they lack the vocabulary to articulate it that way).  And a
baby's "bonding" is, at least according to my old developmental psych 
books, very diffuse at first, and then increases both as the organism
is able to focus with greater acuity and as the being obtains recognition
through repetition, something which has to do with evaluations of 
security and satisfaction rather than with *who* it is.




> Sociobiology suggests that instinctive behaviour is very important (but
> not exclusive of cultural effects).

Quite true, but sociobiology is pretty bogus anyway.


> Arnold Chamove

OO
\/
Rod


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com