[quote=xilman;186045]Or, indeed, couples.[/quote]

I think that [I]quadruples[/I] (couples of couples) could fulfill the function of an (in a certain sense) optimal basic social unit, as long as it consists of 2 males and 2 females.

If the breeding takes place to create all 4 possible pairings, this would ensure maximal genetic variability in a constant population size. Furthermore, as all 4 offspring would share the same degree of blood-relationship, this might minimize potential social conflict, because there would c.p. simply be fewer families that could have feuds.

We know that the ratio of fertile males/females is roughly 1.0, so the ML estimator of the ratio of male/female same sex-couples resp. singles would also be close to 1.0.

The 2nd child of opposite-sex couples very often (something like 10-20%) has a different biological father, which indicates that there is a selective advantage for genetic impulse-shopping, to circumvent sub-optimal Judeo-Christian regulations: it's essential to cheat on your spouse, but only until you get preggers (or until you preggered your neighbor's wife). Which means that 10% of the population living as [I]quadruples[/I] wouldn't really change anything essential for the survival of our species, since we've been doing it all along.

Comments?

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186269]I think that [I]quadruples[/I] (couples of couples) could fulfill the function of an (in a certain sense) optimal basic social unit, as long as it consists of 2 males and 2 females.

If the breeding takes place to create all 4 possible pairings, this would ensure maximal genetic variability in a constant population size. Furthermore, as all 4 offspring would share the same degree of blood-relationship, this might minimize potential social conflict, because there would c.p. simply be fewer families that could have feuds.

We know that the ratio of fertile males/females is roughly 1.0, so the ML estimator of the ratio of male/female same sex-couples resp. singles would also be close to 1.0.

The 2nd child of opposite-sex couples very often (something like 10-20%) has a different biological father, which indicates that there is a selective advantage for genetic impulse-shopping, to circumvent sub-optimal Judeo-Christian regulations: it's essential to cheat on your spouse, but only until you get preggers (or until you preggered your neighbor's wife). Which means that 10% of the population living as [I]quadruples[/I] wouldn't really change anything essential for the survival of our species, since we've been doing it all along.

Comments?[/QUOTE]Makes perfect sense to me, from a purely genetic point of view. I don't know of any societies that have tried it, but that is a statement of ignorance, not of non-existence.

However, there are many other possible arrangements which work reasonably well, some of which have been implemented. Polygyny is well known (especially in Utah and much of the Islamic world) and polyandry appears to have resulted in stable societies in (at least) parts of Polynesia.

Menages-á-trois are sufficiently common that they even have a moderately well-known English (and French) term to describe them.


Paul

[quote=xilman;186325]However, there are many other possible arrangements which work reasonably well, some of which have been implemented. Polygyny is well known (especially in Utah and much of the Islamic world) and polyandry appears to have resulted in stable societies in (at least) parts of Polynesia.[/quote]

The point is that this type of clustering is inefficient since it artificially reduces the size of the gene-pool by at least 50%. Not to mention other effects, such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28polygamy%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(polygamy)[/URL].

Because of this I think it is very much possible that societies built upon that type of social units are destined to be Darwinian duds, whereas a society entirely built upon cocksuckers & lesbians forming [I]quadruples[/I] wouldn't suffer from that defect.

[QUOTE=garo;186233]That is a stupid response to well thought out objections by xilman. You obviously don't have a leg to stand on and are thus throwing in a straw-man.[/QUOTE]garo, if you thought I was objecting to xilman's comment, you are quite mistaken. LOL.

[QUOTE]Makes perfect sense to me, [i]from a purely genetic point of view.[/i][/QUOTE](emphasis added)

From a purely genetic point of view, we should forcibly harvest sperm and eggs, to create more variability than would arise naturally. We should make certain segments of society infertile. We should do a bunch of other horrible things. From a purely genetic point of view.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186340]The point is that this type of clustering is inefficient since it artificially reduces the size of the gene-pool by at least 50%. Not to mention other effects, such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28polygamy%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(polygamy)[/URL].

I think it is very much possible that societies built upon this type of social units are destined to be Darwinian duds.[/QUOTE]I never claimed optimal (genetic) efficiency, only that they had been implemented successfully.

Paul

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186340]The point is that this type of clustering is inefficient since it artificially reduces the size of the gene-pool by at least 50%. Not to mention other effects, such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28polygamy%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(polygamy)[/URL].

I think it is very much possible that societies built upon this type of social units are destined to be Darwinian duds.[/QUOTE]I never claimed optimal (genetic) efficiency, only that they had been implemented successfully.

A traditional way of losing boys is through warfare.


Paul

[quote=Zeta-Flux;186343]From a purely genetic point of view, we should forcibly harvest sperm and eggs, to create more variability than would arise naturally. We should make certain segments of society infertile. We should do a bunch of other horrible things. From a purely genetic point of view.[/quote]

No, that is the way misanthropic, petty, retarded, control-freaks like the people who mimic the behavior of their Abrahamic master deity, see things.

It is precisely because superior beings [I]do not[/I] know what the optimal strategies for social units are, that they leave the decisions about what a basic social unit should be and what is best for it, to the actual members of social units, and not to miserable little toads who believe in fairy-tales.

[quote=__HRB__;186372]No, that is the way misanthropic, petty, retarded, control-freaks like the people who mimic the behavior of their Abrahamic master deity, see things.[/quote]

...and watching dishonest, petty, retarded, control-freak socialists duking it out with these guys, is a never-ending source of amusement for some [I]aristoi.[/I]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186372]No, that is the way misanthropic, petty, retarded, control-freaks like the people who mimic the behavior of their Abrahamic master deity, see things.

It is precisely because superior beings [I]do not[/I] know what the optimal strategies for social units are, that they leave the decisions about what a basic social unit should be and what is best for it, to the actual members of social units, and not to miserable little toads who believe in fairy-tales.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;186409]...and watching dishonest, petty, retarded, control-freak socialists duking it out with these guys, is a never-ending source of amusement for some [I]aristoi.[/I][/QUOTE]

... and reading material reminiscent of the speech of Tourette's sufferers is amusing to some people but offensive to others.

I suggest that you tone down your rhetoric. If you are as smart as you apparently believe yourself to be, you should have no difficulty getting over your message in less inflammatory language.


Paul

[quote=xilman;186488]I suggest that you tone down your rhetoric. If you are as smart as you apparently believe yourself to be, you should have no difficulty getting over your message in less inflammatory language.[/quote]

Do you believe that avoiding sacrilege and blasphemy at the expense of clarity makes anybody a better person?

[quote]
The original meaning of the adjective [B]profane[/B] (Latin: "in front of", "outside the temple") referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g. "The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest sacred building," or "besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings".
[/quote]Continuously swearing like a sailor is an obvious way to express disassociation from any religion: if one is always profane, one can never belong to a church. Additionally, it would in fact be dishonest for anyone to express his total lack of respect, while at the same time following conventions to show respect. Consider:

S1: [I]"I have no respect for people who believe in fairy-tales."[/I]
S2: [I]"I have no respect for fucking idiots that believe in fairy-tales."[/I]

Note that the substitution of [I]that[/I] for [I]who [/I]in S2 also conveys that the [I]fucking idiots[/I] don't even qualify as persons. I'm certain you can tell that the messages encoded in S1 and S2 are very different, so anybody who intends to express S2 but writes S1 is factually deceiving his readers.

[quote=xilman;186488]... and reading material reminiscent of the speech of Tourette's sufferers is amusing to some people[...][/quote]

Thank you for the - STINKY FISHFACE - kind words of - TITTY TWISTER - support.