Not true man... sources please.

For crying out loud, there are STILL some polygamous societies today - most of the Arab world, a certain American state.... starts with a U..... and many more.

I'm not saying they are more advanced, in the contrary, from a social point of view they are backward, but we are discussing here our "natural " state .

lol, the arab world is a huge success...

all around...

lol

_________________
what dr. house brings to medicine, i bring to everyday life (an extreme dose of cynicism), don't listen to the curmudgeon!

Mack, if everybody would turn polygamous the world economy will collapse and it would be the end of civilization as we know it. You don't think that I know that? But that's not the point...

Although... it is actually happening, marriage rates are falling, birth rates are in decline... in fact it's one reason for the economic problems in Europe and Japan, negative population growth rates since WWII.

seems to have cut out the links from my original post will try again:

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9404.full

No...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n14708875/

"Many researchers concluded that in Lucy's species, as among gorillas, the toughest males dominated the mating scene. Gorilla males tend to fight among themselves, baring dagger-like canine teeth. Winners do the lion's share of mating with available females, whom the dominant males guard from skulking suitors."

so 'tis best to go around beating, biting, and ripping the testicles off of my male competitors?

"cuz that's what primates do?"

help me understand...

_________________
what dr. house brings to medicine, i bring to everyday life (an extreme dose of cynicism), don't listen to the curmudgeon!

That link is actually a reasonably balanced comparison between the 2 sides of the scientific community, it's also not really a case of "'No' this link proves you wrong" if you read it fully it shows you both sides of the debate objectively.

It's also worth noting that the primary counter argument put forward has some holes in it - namely the assumption larger specimens are male and smaller female, especially with the inability to accurately tell the sex's apart. They themselves admit that and sadly they have to wait until more accurate analysis of more complete skeletons with pelvis's are done to back up their theory. Currently they need proof to back it up - Size does not equal sex - thats a huge assumption to make!

Even if we were to assume that as correct that would put the size difference between the sex's as males being ~50% more than females, which would put our ancestors in line with gorilla style system - completely opposite to the ideals professed in this thread as natural to us. Modern mans size difference is about 15%. I could live with that lifestyle choice - dictorial style hareem with only me having access! hehe!

End of the day both sides agree that whatever sexual system was used it was a set system which simplified sexual competition freeing up time and energy to focus less on pure basic survival and allowed us instead to develop brain size and intelligence.

To me weighing up the pro's n cons id say that's probably different method to both chimps and gorillas otherwise they would probably be much more highly evolved, instead of simply focusing extensively on fucking,eating and sleeping. Which thankfully falls in line with my original statements about development of society!

Actually that leads me to a question, whats the financial situations of all the polyamourist's? my curiosity centers around if it's maybe less productive (examples of polyamourist society today are usually tribal and backwards - masai, pre-educated aboriginies) - ie the rest of your life suffers or you are financially well off that work etc is not essential or an afterthought?