this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
92 points (89.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Let's imagine, a world where 10 month a year, men and women don't care about each other. However, twice a year, during 2-3 weeks, non pregnant women produce pheromone that men can't resist and start calling every boy around to breed with them.

How would this impact the civilisation ?

I know about David Brin's *glory season * but not sure whether any other writer explored that idea.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Shou@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not only that. Menstruation started as a way to decrease the chance of non viable pregnancies (because we are susceptible to genetic mutations which we needed to in order to adapt). Because it reduced fertility, people had to fuck more often. Not only that, men were selected on certain traits that resulted in paternal care evolving. Because well... if the mom dies, then at least the dad makes sure they both succesfully reproduced. Male chimps are more likely to eat orphans than take care of em. After all, they can always force a another one.

Menstruation became so good at reducing fertility, that we developed monogamous behaviour. Men developed the ability to bond at all. By becomming more sensitive to oxytocin despite producing less of the stuff compared to women. Men also express prolactin in the brain after their baby is born, which is hard to find in other primates. It's amazing that men don't kill infants whereas male apes and monkeys do... just to get the female in estrus faster again.

I mean just look at the other primates. The males really don't care about anything except their position, and control over females. Whereas men can love interacting with dogs. Ever seen a cat dad? That's true care and love right there. It sounds like a "duh." But there is so much more behind the behaviour.

Humans are dope.

[โ€“] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Other primates usually only kill infants when they're not the progenitor. They don't kill them randomly

[โ€“] Shou@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But it's often 1 male that mates. So you have a lot more males that try to kill, rather than not. And if that 1 male wasn't at the top, he'd be doing the same.

[โ€“] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Sure. But the point isn't murder it's reproductive success.

The males are not interested in killing their own children. If they were, evolution would quickly remove them from the gene pool.

It's difficult to apply modern western morals to other cultures much less other species.

[โ€“] Shou@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I am aware of the reason behind the behaviour. I even mentioned that killing an infant gets the female in estrus sooner. I was merely pointing out that men aren't like male monkeys. That men are able to find the idea of infanticide unacceptable, wereas male monkeys couldn't care less.

I am not applying "modern western morals" on them. Strange way to phrase it too. Why not call it human morals? Why modern western?