On Apr 27, 7:16 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> This is quite correct. Laws forbidding polygamy can be considered to
> be a form of sumptuary law, with a socialistic purpose; to equalize
> ***ual access among males.
>
> By reducing the number of unhappy males, it provides for a more stable
> society, with less productive effort channeled into policing. Ancient
> societies that permitted polygamy, or which had other policies, like
> primogeniture, that created a large class of dispossessed men, usually
> needed them as cannon fodder, and they had the hope of acquiring land
> and wives through foreign conquest.
Actually, I don't think this is true of primogeniture. If men have an
average of more than one living son (as critics tacitly assume) then
the population is increasing, and therefore there will be less land
per person no matter how it is split up. Primogeniture might actually
make this less bad, by ensuring that at least one son has enough,
rather than all becoming paupers.
> So we can welcome a ban on polygamy as part of human progress.
>
> At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
> reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
> breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
> most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.
But - who are the 'men with the greatest achievements'? At many times
in history, that referred to the greatest thugs. And I have always
maintained that great men are precisely those that contribute to
society more with their works than they ever could through their
genes.
Andrew Usher
|
