daniel92 Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 Hello everyone, I have been thinking about love analytically for some time, and I've come to a conclusion that I'd like to discuss with someone. From my point of view, love in its traditional sense is nothing more than a hormone-driven form of eugenics (on a local scale) and, therefore, unethical and not the beautiful selfless kind of thing that everyone says it is. Let me explain. Eugenics is the application of methods to improve the "quality" or "evolutionary fitness" of the people in a society by making sure that people with desirable properties have more offspring than people who are deemed unfit, with the goal of increasing the desirable genes in the population. Love is a hormone-driven form of the same kind of thing. Falling in love with someone basically means that some algorithm in the brain has determined that the mating partner has been deemed fit and healthy enough to pass on one's own genes, and that the genes of the beloved partner are "good" and capable of survival, increasing the likelihood of passing on one's own genes by caring for the partner until the children are capable of surviving on their own. Everyone who has understood the theory of natural selection should agree that this is the most probable explanation for why love exists. It can not be denied (based on correlation studies) that people with more desirable genes are more likely to be loved than people with unhealthy, unfit genes. Usually, the outer appearance of a person is the most important input variable for the algorithm determining a fit mating partner. This makes sense, since the outer appearance has been the only indicator for millions and millions of years of evolution, long before things like language, intelligence or self-confidence existed. A similar argument can be given for love of children, or sexual attraction between mating partners. How, then, could anyone say that love is beautiful, selfless and worthy to pursue, if it is nothing more than a hormonal way of judging how good someone is at contributing to the survival of one's own genes? How can I be a selfless, caring and ethical person while giving in to a primitive urge that I deem to be morally wrong? I do not want to judge people based on their appearance. I want everyone in this world to be equally happy and equally respected. But this is at odds with giving in to my primitive urge to find a mating partner that I deem to be better than others. Do you think that it is possible to overcome this urge and still lead a fulfilled life? Do you think that the human need for love and intimacy can be replaced by caring about all people in the same way, and forming platonic emotional bonds with multiple People? I do not want this gene pool competition. I just don't. But I'm wondering if I can actually fight this human need and still be a well-balanced, fulfilled human being. I'm keen to know what you think of this. Regards, Daniel Link to post Share on other sites
=NolePtr Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Yup. Natural selection is entirely not a selfless act. Its all about continuing one's own genetic lineage. It's not selfless, or even beautiful. It's just greed. Link to post Share on other sites
DanRod Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Would you please clarify what "love in its traditional sense" means to you? Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 How can I be a selfless, caring and ethical person while giving in to a primitive urge that I deem to be morally wrong? I do not want to judge people based on their appearance. I want everyone in this world to be equally happy and equally respected. But this is at odds with giving in to my primitive urge to find a mating partner that I deem to be better than others. A better question would be how can you be a caring and ethical person while being judgmental (yes, judgmental) about those who consider love to be worthy to pursue, no matter what YOU consider it to be. Link to post Share on other sites
kisupure Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Last I checked, merely existing wasn't an entirely selfless act either... How can anyone ethically justify doing anything, or being alive, if everything we choose to do makes us feel better than the thing we didn't choose to do? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Hello everyone, I have been thinking about love analytically for some time, and I've come to a conclusion that I'd like to discuss with someone. From my point of view, love in its traditional sense is nothing more than a hormone-driven form of eugenics (on a local scale) and, therefore, unethical and not the beautiful selfless kind of thing that everyone says it is. Let me explain. Eugenics is the application of methods to improve the "quality" or "evolutionary fitness" of the people in a society by making sure that people with desirable properties have more offspring than people who are deemed unfit, with the goal of increasing the desirable genes in the population. Love is a hormone-driven form of the same kind of thing. Falling in love with someone basically means that some algorithm in the brain has determined that the mating partner has been deemed fit and healthy enough to pass on one's own genes, and that the genes of the beloved partner are "good" and capable of survival, increasing the likelihood of passing on one's own genes by caring for the partner until the children are capable of surviving on their own. Everyone who has understood the theory of natural selection should agree that this is the most probable explanation for why love exists. It can not be denied (based on correlation studies) that people with more desirable genes are more likely to be loved than people with unhealthy, unfit genes. Usually, the outer appearance of a person is the most important input variable for the algorithm determining a fit mating partner. This makes sense, since the outer appearance has been the only indicator for millions and millions of years of evolution, long before things like language, intelligence or self-confidence existed. A similar argument can be given for love of children, or sexual attraction between mating partners. How, then, could anyone say that love is beautiful, selfless and worthy to pursue, if it is nothing more than a hormonal way of judging how good someone is at contributing to the survival of one's own genes? How can I be a selfless, caring and ethical person while giving in to a primitive urge that I deem to be morally wrong? I do not want to judge people based on their appearance. I want everyone in this world to be equally happy and equally respected. But this is at odds with giving in to my primitive urge to find a mating partner that I deem to be better than others. Do you think that it is possible to overcome this urge and still lead a fulfilled life? Do you think that the human need for love and intimacy can be replaced by caring about all people in the same way, and forming platonic emotional bonds with multiple People? I do not want this gene pool competition. I just don't. But I'm wondering if I can actually fight this human need and still be a well-balanced, fulfilled human being. I'm keen to know what you think of this. Regards, Daniel It's bizarre then that people fall in love with obese people, and sick people, and deformed people, and people with bad teeth, and people with acne.. and people who are poor and malnourished.. and women who can't have children..and so on and so forth. It's like you're saying anyone who isn't perfect mating material can't be loved.. What about all the people who are perfectly happy without love yet enjoy Iove when it happens to them (because it reaIIy does feeI Iike something that happens to you, it's not a choice most of the time.) What about the people who just fall in love with someone because ..love happens. Even when neither person is initially the others idea of aesthetically attractive..even when neither people want kids.. even *gasp* when they're both the same bio gender so they'll NEVER be able to "naturally" have children together. What about those people who are in love with another person who go over to Africa to work in emergency aid or whatever.. you get that its possible to love someone AND care for others, right? Are you saying mothers should leave their kids in the wilderness to die? What form of "love" are you talking about? This sounds like another elitism thread, I'll be honest. "If you experience any kind of love other than polyamorous platonic emotional affection you are automatically inferior and should change" ..Not cool. Also, you've actually completely misunderstood love and confused it with attraction. Many people (not all) experience attraction based on appearance. Long term love itself is more often about the compatibility of your personality etc. That initial hormonal stage you're referring to is more limerance based on hormones and (often) initial attraction to appearance. But a mother can love her child even if the child is severely disabled or mentally ill (*gasp*) just as someone can fall in love and still desire another person who may be clearly very unhealthy or not conventionally attractive in *any* way (romantic love and parent/child love are very different types of love, but the they can both still be felt despite "genetic imperfection") Think about it. If love was actually how you think it is (a form of eugenics and everyone chooses genetically superior/attractive/healthy partners and kills children that aren't genetically perfect etc) ..then haven't we been breeding long enough as a species for all genetic inferiority and ugliness to have been "bred out" of our species?? Clearly, there is a LOT more to love that you seem to think there is, or we'd all be gorgeous and genetically superior; Yet it's actually MINORITY of people who look like that. While shallow people may scramble to be the partner of one super attractive person (ie Brad Pitt) as a result of sexual attraction to him, there are plenty of normal looking people and ugly people who still get partners, experience long term love, and have kids (oh and, have no interest in having sex with Brad Pitt)... As well as experiencing very satisfying lives. Link to post Share on other sites
Snao Cone Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Eugenics is a systemic, centrally planned method of control over a population based on perceptions of genetic superiority. This "local level" you're describing is a personal choice that you are saying is morally wrong for people to make. It sounds like you're trying to make it seem evil for people to choose someone else over you. Love isn't entirely selfless and it's not blind. If that's what you want to criticize, then stick to that. Your morality here is just as selfish. Link to post Share on other sites
fissiparity Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 People are biologically attracted to certain desirable features in others, for example women can be attracted to males with masculine and muscular features when fertile. It isn't just individuals who want desirable traits but employers, clubs and universities. Even socialising with others is conditional upon a person having approved character traits. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 What did I just read?! 😂 1. Of course love is selfish. Everything we do is selfish. So, if your issue is that love is selfish, then I agree, but I also think it's pretty meaningless because all things are. Having children, also considered selfless, is selfish. So is choosing what you want to eat, choosing where you live, etc. If you're making a choice, it's selfish. That's life. 2. You state that love means finding someone to be the best for genetic repopulation. But where da fuck you getting that?! I'm not going to repost Pan's response, but basically, that. People fall in love with less-than-ideal genetic carriers all the time. Far too often for you to claim the opposite as a fact. Plus, people who don't want kids fall in love all the time (ahem, like moi). 3. Physical indicators may be the best way to judge genetic quality upon initial meetings, but people don't fall in love upon first sight (or at least, most don't). And even if they do, lots of things can hinder building a relationship. Regardless of first impressions, love is built on so much more, and relationships built on so much more than that. It's ridiculous for you to claim that love is based on genetic fitness. 4. Local eugenics? Sticking penises inside vaginas requires pretty close contact. Now that the interwebs exist, people are meeting others who live further away, but regardless, Californians mating with other Californians instead of taking state-wide sex trips to New Zealand to mate with them is NOT eugenics. Jesus. 5. As Snowcone said, eugenics is systematic and intentional. Having personal preferences, even when it comes to reproduction, is not the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I think I'll just stop posting and let Skulls do it for me. Better, in fact. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 No way man, your perspective is great and far more succinct! :D Also I'm going thru an aven disenchantment. At least I used to get interesting info about what the youngsters were doing and thinking. Now it seems like a website full of people who just say "NO" to everyone and everything, and like, that's my thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I fell in love with a guy when I already had two children and had no intention of having more, and he had 6 children and was so little inclined to have more, he'd had himself "fixed." So somehow, with us, love had nothing to do with suitability to spawn. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 People are biologically attracted to certain desirable features in others for example women can be attracted to males with masculine and musular features when fertile. I kind of feel it's a myth that "women like masculine men" .. I mean, some do, but I'm sure that's just a personal thing as opposed to having anything to do with mating compatibility or whatever. I feel I've met more women with a preference for skinny, pale, nerd-type guys than I have met ones who like muscles *shudder* ..I'm really not a fan of the whole "buff" look! Just as it's a myth that all men like large breasts. It seems the vast majority of males actually prefer breasts somewhere in the middle size-wise as opposed to too big or too small. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I think that culture has a hell of a lot more to do with who we find attractive than the whole evolutionary biology explanation. How else do we account for the fact that goths find goths attractive, punks find punks attractive, alternative folk find alts attractive... not to mention all the studies that show that stupid crap like someone's name, purported job, haircut, etc, influences our attraction. Those things aren't genetic, but we respond more strongly to things like personal style and educational background than we do pure physique. Link to post Share on other sites
fissiparity Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 People are biologically attracted to certain desirable features in others for example women can be attracted to males with masculine and musular features when fertile. I kind of feel it's a myth that "women like masculine men" Take it up with the authors of this article http://www.livescience.com/8779-fertile-women-manly-men.html Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 My partner wasn't really "masculine" looking in the usual sense. He had long curly hair, and a beard, and one earring. Well, actually, he was pretty masculine looking, just not the usual type... :redface: Link to post Share on other sites
Blakrana Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 RE: Attraction I think there's a definite argument for it being a societal trend. Pick a culture, their idea about what makes a man or woman beautiful will vary to some degree to our own, let alone contemporary society. As an extension of that however, is when one doesn't actually like the 'society approved' idea of 'you should find this attractive'. Standard discomfort and awkwardness ensues when you're not part of the group. Peer pressure is a nasty thing, and people will say some very nasty things should you be honest about what you like. I struggle constantly to be okay with my own personal preferences when it comes to girls as a direct result of the metaphorical neon sign that is society saying 'You shouldn't like this'. Love in and of itself is another kettle of fish altogether. Fact is though, without those various intrinsic biases, then much of the diversity of the species wouldn't be there. Natural selection requires that there be deviation from a 'norm' in order that a species has the best chance of survival possible; all the same just means diseases have a substantially easier time of it. Toss in our advances in medical and social fields and what would have been crippling in the past, we may be either able to appreciate, such as mental disorders and their treatment, or outright cure, like Smallpox. It's natural to have a preference. You can't help not being 'totally cool with anyone'. And when part of nature, as others have mentioned, are pairings that don't actually necessitate reproduction, there's far, far more at play than the simple biological imperative. For all we know, Homosexuality and similar "non-reproductive" orientations serve as a kind of additional filter, such as perhaps a natural population check, or something. Natural, normal, arguably practical. People are biologically attracted to certain desirable features in others for example women can be attracted to males with masculine and musular features when fertile. Just as it's a myth that all men like large breasts. It seems the vast majority of males actually prefer breasts somewhere in the middle size-wise as opposed to too big or too small. Speaking personally, I know I for one really don't get what the big deal is with breasts. Each their own, really, though I know in my experience with fellow guys, we outright rejoice when a game/tabletop depicts a female character wearing actually practical armour. Lord knows the "Breast Plate" is a tiresome thing, let alone the "Chainmail Bikini". I mean, yeah...in kinky scenarios, whatever. In practical ones...nope. Boobies are overrated, really. Unless we're talking about Boobies. Those things are underappreciated. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 Moved topic to PP&S Jayce, A/Romantic orientations moderator. Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 I have been thinking about love analytically That's pretty much where you started to go wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
MoraDollie Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 How, then, could anyone say that love is beautiful, selfless and worthy to pursue, if it is nothing more than a hormonal way of judging how good someone is at contributing to the survival of one's own genes? How can I be a selfless, caring and ethical person while giving in to a primitive urge that I deem to be morally wrong? I do not want to judge people based on their appearance. I want everyone in this world to be equally happy and equally respected. But this is at odds with giving in to my primitive urge to find a mating partner that I deem to be better than others. Do you think that it is possible to overcome this urge and still lead a fulfilled life? Do you think that the human need for love and intimacy can be replaced by caring about all people in the same way, and forming platonic emotional bonds with multiple People? I do not want this gene pool competition. I just don't. But I'm wondering if I can actually fight this human need and still be a well-balanced, fulfilled human being. I'm keen to know what you think of this. Regards, Daniel *Waves* I graduated with my undergrad in studio art with a minor in biology with a passion for sexology (so the science behind human sexuality). Romance and love is NOT fairy tales bullshit. I'm currently engaged, and from this relationship (and past) the "I NEED TO LOVE 100% YOU" is NOT true, for ANY relationship. Everyone has pet peeves about their partner. Even if it's something like, leaving the light and/or door on when you leave the room. When you look at monogamy vs poly, some scientists believe it evolved said-way, due to fear of STDs and STIs, when they first evolved. Hormones and all that are microscopic. We can't physically see them. So, to makeup for it, mankind makes up all this wonderful symbolism and why we have deities, globally, involving love and romance. It's our way of trying to apply a physical form to something we don't easily understand. Yes, it is true that what we deem as "beautiful" is just in your DNA, IN A WAY. I say "in a way", because we still have conscious thoughts and decisions. Humans are basically the exception to every rule we have made up to try to better understand ecology (the study of how organisms interact with each other). Boys peacock to girls, girls peacock to guys. Boys fight each other over girls, and girls fight each other over guys. This type of behavior is extremely UNCOMMON in the animal kingdom. You don't need to make babies to contribute to the population. There's studies that support orientations less likely to make babies (asexuals, homosexuality, etc.) do help the population, often by taking care of the younger ones in the population. If this isn't your thing, you might actually have something potentially very dangerous in your genes, and by you not repopulating, you're helping the "gene pool". When I read your post, the vibe I got is someone who is looking at a concept, WAY too "black and white, hard lines" type deal. Romance and love isn't viewed like this to the average man/woman/whatever. Romance is seen as COMPANIONSHIP. Humans are social creatures by nature. We desire love, affection, and face-to-face interaction. This is why we need at least a little bit to have this part of our wellness-circle fulfilled. Can romance lead to babies? Absolutely. However, romance, in of itself, is companionship. My boyfriend and I love each other very much. Is he aesthetically pleasing? To me, absolutely. However, sex is extremely random. We could go a very long time without sex and it not be an issue. I'm also using birth control right now, because I can't afford a baby right now. Also, you might be interested in this, but in a mating study done, they found that basically: attractive people tend to be with attractive people, and unattractive people tend to be with unattractive people. I think you'll really be interested in these two clips: and This is one of my favorite documentaries out there (the science of sex appeal) :) Link to post Share on other sites
RK800 Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 I think the answer is "nope". Link to post Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Sounds to me like the OP is having difficulty decoupling love from lust. Substitute "sex" for "love", and it makes more sense. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.