That's the point
Love is merely a construct designed for population control through social judgement, and long-term relationships are against our nature.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 10:54, 2 replies)

You've never fallen in love, have you?

(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 11:08, closed)

Yep.
I've been with Mrs Vagabond 11 years.

I also smoke. Smoking is completely against our nature too.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 11:20, closed)

In which case I apologise
But let me lay out my counterargument. It looks to me as though we both think along similar lines, that is, that all personality traits and assorted social interactions can be traced back to some basic, Darwinian need to survive long enough to reproduce. Given that our ultimate end-goal is to find the most suitable partner with which to procreate and pass on a share of our genetic material, the drive to shag comes into the equation early. Add to that the fact that you've got to survive in the wilderness long enough to find something to shag, and food and shelter become the next most important drives.

Of course, as animals evolve and increase in their complexity, a pack mentality arises in some species who find that hanging around in large numbers improves their chances of survival. This of course brings in other issues, because if you're ostracised from the pack, your chances of survival may well diminish quite rapidly. If you study a pack for long enough, you'll see that certain members dominate, lead the hunt, get first mating rights, etc. It's not difficult to extrapolate these elements to aspects of personalities in a modern social situation.

So you're right: love is a funny one. You say it's not within our nature, but I think it's more fair to say that it's not within that nature. You see, whilst most, maybe all, of these personality traits can be traced back to the things we needed to survive, we've ended up in a strange position whereby we've almost transcended our base, animal drives, and yet everything we do still relates back to them. (I'd like to re-word that, it's not quite what I'm trying to say) Our individual survival is no longer at risk on a daily basis, and so we have time to fritter away on entertainment, frivolous social interaction or intellectual pursuits. Granted, we still work for a living (money leads to food leads to survival), we still surround ourselves with friends (being part of a pack) and our heads still turn every time some pretty thing in short skirt wafts past (sexeh tiem = end-goal).

But since we are able to occupy our brains with other things than just where our next meal is coming from, we spend more time interacting with other people on a far more complex level, to the point where we enjoy each other's company. We no longer join packs based on which one offers the best chance of survival, but on the ones who share our interests. We choose our friends based on who we enjoy spending time with, as opposed to who might provide the best protection.

And in the same way that we grow attached to our good friends, every so often we grow a similarly strong attachment to a sexual partner. You've got a point, a lot of it is probably driven by a societal ideal that is "the right thing to do," but the very fact that we have the capacity to fall in love with someone, to want to spend time with them, to want to protect them and to make sure that they're happy and to develop this strange, soppy, sentimental bond to them, makes me think that for all my cold, clinical Darwinian view of human personality, monogamous love is not outside our nature. It probably wasn't in our nature when we first evolved, but as we've built this strange new environment around ourselves, it's something we've developed out of social interactions that would have been unheard of amongst the first packs of Homo Sapiens on the African savannah. (And I do appreciate that monogamy's not for everyone.)

Doubt it's relevant, but several species of crow mate for life.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 11:45, closed)

There are many species that mate for life - many of them birds
Penguins, swans and others.

We are neither penguins, crows, nor swans.

Male humans basically want to impregnate as many females as possible, and waste no significant time nurturing a relationship with the as it isn't necessary for impregnation, and female humans need to ensnare a male for the pregnancy and childhood of the offspring for support and protection.

This is why there is a battle of the sexes.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 12:29, closed)

Actually,
I believe penguins choose a new mate annually - they pick one for the mating season, stay together for most of the first 12 months and then wander off and find another come the next mating season.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 13:06, closed)

There are several species of penguin.
One of which features in Batman.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 13:30, closed)

Love is just as real as sex.

(TheSnark oh, c'mon, like you didn't see me coming, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 11:11, closed)

It's a bit more difficult to do with more than one person, though.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 10 Mar 2010, 11:22, closed)