The Evolutionary Advantage of Falling in Love

So, by the same token, if most of us believe in god, then it's a foregone conclusion that needs no proof or factual evidence? We humans just say it, and it's true? Wow, how neat.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all - not half as many people believe in God as have fallen in love. If all the world had conversed with a realistic God the day before yesterday then you and I could take our own memories as proof.
I didn't mention 'saying' something is true.

Now, a return to the point?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, there is no evolutionary advantage for falling in love.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

belief is a tricky thing... people believe things because they're brain washed... but if you have felt god, if you've experienced him, then as far as you are concerned you don't need any scientific proof. And there are very few people who can say with honesty -- and by keeping their conditioning and beliefs aside -- that they have really, truly experience god... but it is possible in my humble view.

 

A thorough and concise conclusion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My personal belief, and I'm diverting from science here but not from logical reasoning, is that life or biology is not only about perpetuating life. There are aspects of life that help in perpetuating life, and there are aspects which make the life liveable for those who are living in the present stage of 'evolution'. I mean if life's only purpose was solely to go on repeating itself like machine, it may not have been worthwhile to live at all.

It's quality vs quantity and there needs to be a balance between these two aspects.

Falling in love fulfills the 'quality' aspect by making the life greatly livable for those in the present stage of 'evolution'.

 

Geez, Fraggle, when you make short, concise posts, you're not bad. I like that statement ....I may just used it myself some day. But I'd like to change it just a tiny, little bit, okay? How 'bout this:

"Humans still have the pack-social instinct of an extended-family clan of nomadic hunter-gatherers, yet here we are living in forced, semi-harmony and forced cooperation with anonymous strangers, having almost completely transformed into a herd-social species."

Isn't that a little more like what it really is? And I hope you realize that by "forced" I don't necessarily mean by usiing clubs or weapons ...it could be simple coercion, even if it's somewhat hidden from us.

Baron Max

 

I know that this will come as a shock to you, Fraggle, but not everyone feels the same way as you do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know, I know, I shouldn't have shocked you like that, but .... Well, take two aspirin and call me in the morning!

Baron Max

 

increased associations combined in pleasure

correct

the dependence of social interractions as well physical dependency

but to make sure of the life sustaining, supporting the life with food and knowledge is important to pass on far more than just the physical genes.

based on both social and the physical 'poles' of opposite attraction.... think of a positive and negative and how 'op-po-sites at-tract'

Have to admit Love is the greatest experience on earth!

Ever here the idea that a person may not feel 'whole' without a partner?

From the birds and the bees, to mankind; that combining of mass to produce life is pretty natural!

Love can be defined as 'choice is made to care more for another over the preference of self.'

or to another extreme ... soldiers do not protect a society without love; for the cause.

 

Across the world, in all the tribal societies of the ancient world, humans have been living in male only, female only and third-gender only groups -- much like elephants and macaque monkeys.

Kids have typically been raised by all women spaces, collectively, while men had no role to play in the upbringing of kids. Furthermore, the further back we go in history, the lesser was social interaction between men and women -- the interaction been limited to mating once in a blue moon.

Girl kids would stay on in the women's spaces, while the boys would move on to men's spaces and become men, usually after going through some kind of initiations. (if we accept your/ western theory, then there would have been no need for initiation rites and boys would not need to move to men's spaces to be men). The boys, as soon as they reached adolescence were taken over by men's spaces who then took care of all their needs, protected them, mentored them, guided them, and gave them emotional support, till they became men. It is not that the boys were thrown out of female spaces, it is more that boys craved for men's spaces, just like today's boys who crave for manhood and for male company.

Marriage was an unusual instution 'invented' by some society somewhere and then it spread to many cultures across the world which were increasingly being greedy about reproduction, getting obssessed with it, as a means to become socially and politically powerful, much like today's nuclear race, when every one wants nuclear weapons to become powerful and stay on in the race. But some far off secluded tribes still don't know anything about marriage (unfortunately, Christians now have gone to them as well!).

However, all across the world, even in pre-modern West, the society, inspite of the marrage institution has been divided into men only and women only spaces, till the modern west, decided that it is "oppression of women" for men to live in men's spaces and then systematically started to destroy every bit of these spaces by heterosexualizing them, while protecting women's spaces.

In species that do keep harems, like lions and horses, e.g., too, the male-only spaces are 'sacred' to males. The harems or 'heterosexual spaces' are built upon female spaces, not male-spaces. The male spaces are always intact, because males need them. Females need female spaces too, however, since they are physically weaker, some males typically control their spaces and use them as 'harems'.

However, these males never really leave their male-spaces, they use the harems for sometime, only to go back to the comfort of their male spaces.

Also, if you see, in such species, a group of about 20 females is ruled over by a pair of males or at the most three. Keeping an average of 2-3, and keeping a 100:100 ratio of males and females, about 18% (app.) of males would cover all the females as harems at any given time. So, where do the rest of the males (82%) go -- Western science is the least bothered about these males or their spaces or what they do, since, it believes that the only worthwhile life is where reproduction is taking place -- the female group, whether with males or without them. It also assumes that these males are 'incapable' males, good-for-nothing, and somehow deprived of company of females due to their 'incapability' because of which, they have no choice but to live in male only spaces. It wouldn't strike to Western scientists that these males could even prefer their male-only spaces over heterosexual spaces and maybe more powerful than those who control the female harems. It requires much more power to control males, than to control females.

Also, please notice that the males 'rule' the harems, they don't form emotional bonds with the females -- they use them for sex. Therefore, there is no question of falling love.

 

Ever read 'River Out of Eden' by Richard Dawkins?

In one of the chapters, to sum up, he describes Nature as the indifferent mother. If we are to assume that you accept the Theory of Evolution, you must also accept that 'Mother Nature' only cares about procreation and survival. Right now, as I am writing this, millions upon millions of animals (including a much smaller number of humans) are screaming wildly in agony as they are ripped apart and killed. Mother Nature will not ease their passing because their genes (already passed on to the next generation) do not require them a comfortable death.

Then again, if too many individuals are killed, then Mother Nature may take an interest - not as many genes are passed on as before. In this case, only the fastest gazelle will go home to sex and babies and, there we have Natural Selection.

To be brief, suffice to say that 'quality of life' has nothing to do with 'quality of offspring'.

 

that is funny

so if i take your children and put them in a box and they never learn a word or how to associate; are you suggesting their continuance (your literal continuance) will not be affected?

 

i am satan. and satan knows all.

 

Falling in love is connected to an overlap of personality firmware. The human personality firmware is the operating system of the human brain. These firmware define our human nature and therefore help to characterize humans as a species. We can tell humans from other species by their common nature. When people fall in love, aspects of the personality firmware overlap to form a composite. This allows the firmware to merge so it can cross program aspects from each other. The couple begins to take on aspects from each others nature.

If one person falls out of love, or disconnects their firmware, before the other, the pain is connected to the other's person's firmware still attached within the composite, but without the expected interactive feedback. Picture a team playing a video game with each person controlling part of a battle robot. If one stops playing, their movement is made difficult for the other person. The imagination will try to fill in the other role, in terms of how the two worked as team, but this is not the same. The firmware has to go through a system restore from a backup copy.

As far as an evolutionary advantage, male and female have complementary firmware, that are designed to mesh like gears. These are based on form and functional difference between male and female. The merger of the firmware of love begins a process where gears mesh. The initial meshing can start a process that allows others firmware gears to also mesh, for other aspects of natural cross programming; stages of life. This does not always occur, because falling in love is often insufficient to initiate the entire chain of overlap.

The main reason falling in love becomes insufficient, is the firmware of love is often equated with sex. Sex is very pleasurable and can create a lingering neurochemical addiction that is assumed to be the foundation of love. These are different gears than love, but can cause the love gears to initiate and mesh. But it would require a high level of passion over a sustained period, with the needs of egos not undermining the process. The old fashion way of learning to love, before sex, is more efficient for full mesh since it is not neurochemical dependent in the same way. Friendship is not as linear as sex and often has other connections to more aspects of the personality.

The one practical problem with homosexuality and the firmware of love, is these are not naturally staggered in the same sex to provide a full complementary mesh for cross programming. The result is a higher level of lingering potential/obsession. A male cannot teach another male to be a natural female by watching culture. This data has to come directly from spontaneous personality firmware controlled at the genetic level. This is why superficial perfection will often become important; simulation. This is based on an external rendition of internal firmware but lacks the same real time natural programming. This is why liberalism just assumes it is all about cultural programming and not about anything naturally inherent. The truth refutes many of the deceptions.

 

degrading love to barter system, so that a species may continue, to prove theories.
sex is natural and sexuality is not.
making love equal to sex, the gross degradation. love is all, love is sex , love is affection, but vice versa is not true. love comes first than comes sex.

 

love has no reason. our existence has no reason in this universe in terms of science.