Is human monogamous love detrimental in trait selection?

Maybe action heroes like spider man, and super man are good examples of this sort of story. Heroes could be lessons on mate selection.

I wrote a short story in college about a football scout who was getting sumo wrestlers to impregnate ballerinas, to create a front line with grace and agility.

No.

I’d say the question’s assumptions are greatly flawed, in terms of what evolution is and how evolution actually works, and also in terms of claiming that human selection doesn’t strongly favor the sorts of things you’re talking about, and also I would say it’s mistaken that love is not a positive survival trait! (i.e. It seems to me that the most loveless families are the most screwed up ones, and the ones with lots of love tend to do best, in many ways.)

I further suggest you re-consider the meanings you assign to words such as “fitness”, “better”, “the true best practice”, “genetic capital”, “nature probably wins”, “won”, “inferior genetics”.

”... shouldn’t some of our literature and tradition romanticize and normalize choosing a mate for their genetic capital?”
– No. This is an all-too-common hogwash misunderstanding of natural selection, as well as foolish over-confidence that someone thinks they know how to objectively evaluate “genetic capital” or even less-ridiculous terms for what’s “best”.

One of the main survival “benefits” of natural selection, is that it involves a great variety of factors, and that it can adapt to changing conditions.

Also, while the question shows many fundamental misunderstandings about how evolution works, consider how many of the common human selection criteria are very much about notions of “fitness”, health, and other qualities related to strength and reproduction, both in biological terms, and in terms of our artificial modern situations and economies.

The general term for the ideas this question starts with is “Social Darwinism”. If you look up that term, and read some of the countless explanations of why it’s a mistake, I think you’ll find the best kinds of answers.

(1) In terms of evolutionary theory, “fitness” is a measure of reproductive success—nothing more, nothing less. Is there any evidence that the advent and spread of (serial) monogamy as a mating strategy among human beings lowered the rate of reproductive success among members of the species?

(2) Genotypes cannot be seen in ordinary circumstances, and phenotypic traits can only provide imperfect signals about what ones genotype might be. Furthermore, what phenotypic traits are considered attractive is at least in part mediated by social and environmental factors. Given this, do you think it is actually possible to reliably determine the “genetic capital” of a potential mate (to the extent that such a thing exists) purely from external observation of their body?

(3) Reproductive success is not solely a function of genotype. Environmental factors—such as parental investment—matter as well. Couldn’t the traits selected for by love operate as signals that a potential mate is able and willing to contribute more than just genetic material to any potential offspring?

(4) The resilience of a species depends in part on its genetic diversity. A disease that affects everyone with a particular gene, for example, is less devastating when a smaller percentage of the species has that gene. And some genes that are primarily thought of in terms of their detrimental effects have highly beneficial effects as well (which complicates the matter of declaring any particular gene “good” or “bad”). To the extent that love might broaden one’s pool of potential mates, might it not also contribute to the genetic diversity of the species?

Each time I finish a bullet point, another pops into my head. But since I can’t keep typing forever, I’ll just end by reminding you that evolution is not a ladder climbing game and that there is no hierarchy of species. Developing a really good trick that works in all or most environments and then sticking with it for millions of years without significant change is just as successful from an evolutionary standpoint as continuously adapting to environmental change by developing a variety of different tricks over time. Thus the whole notion of “inferior genetics” is questionable to begin with.

One more point:

Facts about evolution don’t really tell us much about how to live our lives. It is a mindless and amoral process in which genes compete to replicate themselves that will continue on ruthlessly with or without our consent. But that doesn’t mean that we as thinking beings have to mindlessly and amorally accept it as a blueprint for our lives or the value thereof. As Richard Dawkins once said: “Let us understand Darwinism so we can walk in the opposite direction when it comes to setting up society.”

I admit fully that my whole question is flawed. I agree with Zaku and SavoirFaire about this.

My point is more about the literature. But, still I understand that any trait the lover finds appealing could potentially be an evolutionary winner, even if it’s simply opportunity, and has nothing at all to do with any other characteristic besides being there and physically able.

I’m not sure I have a point, but the idea I am pondering is just the way humans can pickup on something as subtle as personality to choose to mate, whereas the person with said good personality might have some obvious genetic problem that dooms their entire hereditary line to failure. I’m not arguing that ANYONE should not deserve love, just that I think other species seem to stick with more pragmatic traits than something as ephemeral as personality. (Even in species like sparrows this same personality argument might mean a seemingly weaker sparrow is luckier in love.. So it’s terribly hard to isolate love as humans understand it as something unique in the animal kingdom if it isn’t).

Look at Cheetahs. I suspect Cheetahs fall in love with fast mates. And, that over time this gets you faster Cheetahs.

In humans I am trying to ponder what the romance gets us. Emotional evolution? Advances in personality?

I don’t have any thoughts on which features are best. I think the environment is constantly deciding that.

But, my point is humans can choose anyone with our fickle method of mate selection.

“I think other species seem to stick with more pragmatic traits than something as ephemeral as personality.”
– Why do you think that?

“I think other species seem to stick with more pragmatic traits than something as ephemeral as personality.”
– Why do you think those things?
– I think you are wrong, and making assumptions based on misunderstandings of natural selection in general, and lack of information about cheetahs. Female cheetahs mate with multiple males, and vice versa. I looked and did not find great data, and I doubt that we know what their criteria are like, or that that criteria is simple and reduces to fastest runners. In any case, they are not picky selectors. No males nor females are excluded.

“In humans I am trying to ponder what the romance gets us. Emotional evolution? Advances in personality?”
– NO!
– STOP!
– Please read some good articles about the fallacies of Social Darwinism!

”... which features are best. I think the environment is constantly deciding that.”
– I think that’s an unfortunate way of thinking about both things.
– There is no “best”. Even if all you care about is survival or reproduction, which would be subscribing to a misunderstanding of Darwinism, even then, there would be no “best” even for that extremely limited perspective.

Don’t forget about the influence of money. Now that women are in the workforce in greater numbers, it may not make as big a difference as previously, but I still would not discount it. Having a good income improves the survival chances of offspring. No doubt there are still parents telling their daughters that it is as easy to marry a rich man as a poor one.

Is wealth related to genetics? Cultural influences play a large role, but there must be at least a small genetic component.

Blame the new testament , and religion in general.

Prior to around the time of Christ – maybe a little before – men could (and did) have multiple wives and often did. This is all over the old testament. It was not only accepted, but encouraged because multiple wives mean more sons, which meant a stronger and more powerful tribe going forward.

Then the damn christians got into organizing things – and zap – all of of a sudden monogamy was the rule. Extra wives were frowned upon, called names, and stoned.

Monogamy is a human construct.

I blame it all on bad poetry, lousy postmodern novels, “music” that sucks, movies that make you want to read poetry, and politics that make it easier to be a fetus than a real adult. Culturally we’re a mess when it comes to sorting through all this garbage and finding anyone worth spending the rest of your life with. So it shouldn’t be a big surprise that evolution seems to be staying in a van down by the river.

But you’re hearing that from a serial dater. That’s my own answer to the “mating fitness through natural selection” theory. I select. I mate. I call an uber. It works for me. And the partners I choose wouldn’t fit any demographic or genetic model of success & “superiority”. What attracts me to someone usually depends on mood, emotion, and undefinable qualities that capture my senses.

Because whether you’re in Minneapolis or Mumbai reproduction requires sex. And sex is supposed to be fun. So don’t blame Casablanca. Or your mom. I’ve really got no idea how “romance ” would look in popular culture if it were all about well bred males choosing perfect fertile females. My guess is – it would be really boring.

BUT Breaking News! : The real problem with our genetic future isn’t confusing mating rituals, it’s decilning sperm counts & feritility in males and increasing miscarriages & other reproductive problems among females. And it’s getting steadily worse according to at least one recognized journal :
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/

So after we’re finished beating each other up over all the cultural schlock, how about we get busy cleaning the real toxic threats out of our environment??

Because I won’t make babies with you if you don’t ;P

Fitness? As a reason to hook up and have sex?? Are you kidding??? It’s about LUST! Being HORNEY! Having an ITCH that wants to be SCRATCHED!

Pondering on the words “monogamous” and “nature.”
I saw a meme the other day that if women have sex with 100 random men she can still only give birth to one full term baby a year.
Whereas if a man has sex with 100 random women it’s possible for him to wind up with 100 babies.
Morality aside, what would nature choose?

@Dutchess_III If properly administered after the fact, a man needs only one instance to produce enough sperm to fertilize thousands, if not millions of women. If a man had the wherewithal and the means to have sex with, say, ten women a day for a full year, and each woman got pregnant, ...
3,650 babies!

Just what the planet needs! ~

Gotta pump those numbers up! That’s rookie numbers!!!

@kritiper

@kritiper makes a good point.

That’s a ton of offspring from a couple of squirts. But it also points up some potential dangers. If we say 3650 babies per year, what is the probability that somewhere along the line one if the girl offspring meets one of the boy offspring and they, in turn mate and have children. The potential for inbreeding and birth defects rises exponentially.

Which is why sperm banks (or whatever they are called these days) are careful who gets their contributions and how many there are.

And this has nothing to do with the OP’s question, because you can have a mongamous relationship and still have 3649 potential half-brothers and sisters,

@kritiper, @elbanditoroso – That’s assuming that none of those busy boys are shooting blanks. But according to the research in the article link I posted above, ^^^ with infertility and weak sperm counts increasing at over 1% each year that’s not a safe guess.

@JLoon With eight billion people on the planet now, it’s enough!