> How would this be distinguished from people simply having the desire to orgasm which unintentionally causes reproduction?
That's reverse causality. Evolutionary fitness is a strong driver of human behavior. There's plenty of incidental behaviour, but in terms of baby making it's clear cut.
> so there need not be any biological imperative to stop at one mate.
It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes. Promiscuity is definitely favorable if the rearing duties can be foisted onto someone else, though paternity tests and prophylactics have changed the landscape somewhat.
There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested
> That's reverse causality. Evolutionary fitness is a strong driver of human behavior. There's plenty of incidental behaviour, but in terms of baby making it's clear cut.
That does not seem to be consistent with declining birthrates in developed countries. By and large, the more freedom and self sufficiency women have, the lower the birth rate (not a scientific conclusion, but what I see so take it with a boulder of salt).
I often wonder if we went back in time and asked all the women who had 3, 4, 5+ children, how many of those were wanted pregnancies versus how many of those were due to “pressure” of some kind from the father or society.
> It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes.
I would also guess tribes that prioritize monogamous relationships with multiple generations cooperating with each other outlast tribes that do not. But I would also guess that the biological (or “machine” aspect of it) is for males to be promiscuous. The tribes that fight this biological urge by whatever means (even just keeping it hush hush so it allows for peace) would be more successful long term than those that do not?
> There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested
I’ll check it out. Here’s a link for anyone else interested:
> That does not seem to be consistent with declining birthrates in developed countries. By and large, the more freedom and self sufficiency women have, the lower the birth rate
I have read this before and I think it's an accurate phenomenon. There's some amount of 'evolutionary warfare' between sexes. I think the biological mechanism for it is called 'imprinting'. Also women have preference for someone who will help with the cost of pregnancy (which can be fatal) and rearing, as for men, they might not include this in their calculus.
> I would also guess tribes that prioritize monogamous relationships with multiple generations cooperating with each other outlast tribes that do not.
The picture is, of course, complicated. Societies/tribes have varied between polygamy and monogamy, and a number of factors are involved, including culture. All better explained by that lecture series. Though keep in mind is over a decade old
That's reverse causality. Evolutionary fitness is a strong driver of human behavior. There's plenty of incidental behaviour, but in terms of baby making it's clear cut.
> so there need not be any biological imperative to stop at one mate.
It's more efficient when you consider humans have a long maturation time. Reproductive success is also greater when grandparents are involved with child rearing, implying that a strong family unit leads to better outcomes. Promiscuity is definitely favorable if the rearing duties can be foisted onto someone else, though paternity tests and prophylactics have changed the landscape somewhat.
There's a lot more to it, and much of what I've learnt is from an old Stanford lecture series by Robert Sapolsky called human behavioural biology. Worth a watch if you're interested