How different would civilization be if humans had "mating season" ?
How different would civilization be if humans had "mating season" ?
Let's imagine, a world where 10 month a year, men and women don't care about each other. However, twice a year, during 2-3 weeks, non pregnant women produce pheromone that men can't resist and start calling every boy around to breed with them.
How would this impact the civilisation ?
I know about David Brin's *glory season * but not sure whether any other writer explored that idea.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is actually a HUGE factor in human sexual selection. Other primates have visible Estrous cycles. I.e. what people commonly call going into heat.
This has a big impact on reproductive dynamics. Who mates, when they mate, etc.
Humans, for whatever reason, do not have a visible indicator of fertility, which provides females more sexual selection options. Because it's not obvious when they're in heat, they can choose who they mate with at the right time. They can also socially mate all the time, which can increase human bonding.
Not only that. Menstruation started as a way to decrease the chance of non viable pregnancies (because we are susceptible to genetic mutations which we needed to in order to adapt). Because it reduced fertility, people had to fuck more often. Not only that, men were selected on certain traits that resulted in paternal care evolving. Because well... if the mom dies, then at least the dad makes sure they both succesfully reproduced. Male chimps are more likely to eat orphans than take care of em. After all, they can always force a another one.
Menstruation became so good at reducing fertility, that we developed monogamous behaviour. Men developed the ability to bond at all. By becomming more sensitive to oxytocin despite producing less of the stuff compared to women. Men also express prolactin in the brain after their baby is born, which is hard to find in other primates. It's amazing that men don't kill infants whereas male apes and monkeys do... just to get the female in estrus faster again.
I mean just look at the other primates. The males really don't care about anything except their position, and control over females. Whereas men can love interacting with dogs. Ever seen a cat dad? That's true care and love right there. It sounds like a "duh." But there is so much more behind the behaviour.
Humans are dope.
Other primates usually only kill infants when they're not the progenitor. They don't kill them randomly
But it's often 1 male that mates. So you have a lot more males that try to kill, rather than not. And if that 1 male wasn't at the top, he'd be doing the same.
Sure. But the point isn't murder it's reproductive success.
The males are not interested in killing their own children. If they were, evolution would quickly remove them from the gene pool.
It's difficult to apply modern western morals to other cultures much less other species.
I am aware of the reason behind the behaviour. I even mentioned that killing an infant gets the female in estrus sooner. I was merely pointing out that men aren't like male monkeys. That men are able to find the idea of infanticide unacceptable, wereas male monkeys couldn't care less.
I am not applying "modern western morals" on them. Strange way to phrase it too. Why not call it human morals? Why modern western?