See Kirkasanters And Civilizations and its combox. SM Stirling argues that human beings have not a reproduction instinct but three other instincts, for sex, pair-bonding and care of children, which together perform the same role that a single reproduction instinct would have done. This fits my experience. My concern for my daughter's well-being started at her birth, not earlier. (Although we pair-bond, I do not think that human beings are naturally monogamous.)
It follows that the Kirkasanters need not have evolved a reproduction instinct. They could have survived on existing instincts and have built a pronatal culture. Daven Laure thinks:
"Culture... That's mutable. Bu t you don't change your instincts; they're built into your chromosomes. Her people must have their children" (p. 744)
So our current thinking is that the Kirkasanters' drive to reproduce cannot be instinctual and can only be cultural. However, culture, although mutable, can be overwhelming for individuals and for entire generations so this story can still wind up with Laure and Graydal unable to marry.
5 comments:
As for monogamy, human instincts are conflictual for and against, and to different degrees in both sexes. The old saw:
Higomus, hogamus, woman monogamous
Higamus, hagamus, man is polygamous
-- is an oversimplification but one with a core of truth. You might say that men want stable, monogamous relationships... but also to screw everything nubile in sight.
Hence the recurring pattern in human affairs of very powerful men -- who get to do what they want -- siring disproportionate numbers of children. 10% of Asia is descended from Genghis Khan; Moulay Ismail of Morocco had 3,000-6,000 children; Charles II had 12 -acknowledged- illegitimate children, many of whom founded aristocratic families. Elon Musk has 10 children, at latest count.
Genetic investigations in ancient DNA shows that this pattern stretches back at least to the Neolithic and probably earlier; the Y-chromosome lines of descent (inherited solely from male parents) are much less varied than the mitochondrial lines, inherited through the female lines.
But women generally can't have huge numbers of children; they have a much higher investment in each, therefore, and a greater need for stable relationships.
Hence the joke (first told to me by a lesbian friend): "What do lesbians drive on the second date? Answer: a moving van."
The best generalization, I would say, is that human beings are primed for -serial- monogamy; and women somewhat more so than men.
Personally I approve of monogamy; it's so restful... 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! Many powerful and wealthy men are more likely than not to have many women, if that is what they want to do. And, hence, many children. Women, in contrast, are more likely to prefer stable, monogamous relationships, for the reasons you cited.
So reckoning descent patrilineally became the human norm from very, very far back in human history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the drawback of reconning descent through the paternal line is the old saw:
"Moma's baby, Daddy's... maybe".
That is, paternity is a matter of option(*).
Entire cultures have wrapped themselves up in paranoia and dysfunction because of this.
(*) until DNA testing, of course. It turns out that children are -usually- sired by the father of record... but by no means all are.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Certainly, I agree! There are going to be times when a person's paternity is a matter of doubt.
Most times we are going to have to be satisfied with that "usually," at least before DNA testing became practical.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment