🚀 go-pugleaf

-----
This discussion of what is natural to humans is cross-posted to
sci.bio, implying that it concerns what is natural in a
scientific sense, not just in someone's particular religious or
ethical ontology.  Because religions and various ethical systems
phrase their normative stances in terms of human nature, the
natural is often confused with the desirable, from some
viewpoint. 

In article <1990Dec4.055239.14558@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer) writes:
> The point is, something being 'natural' does not mean that 
> it ALWAYS happens. . . I am 'naturally' right handed, yet I can
> change to being left handed with a great deal of work and trouble.

The question of what is natural to *humans* is one about all of
us as a group, rather than any one of us as as an individual.
Almost all humans develop a prefered handedness.  Most prefer the
right hand.  Some prefer the left hand.  Despite such preference,
humans can learn motor skills on either side; permitting
individual desire, parental training, or cultural imperative to
influence one's handedness.  Some claim that innate handedness
shows through any such training, though the evidence for this is
more subtle. 

> ... I recall spending some time visiting in a sexual dependency
> clinic and the people there sure weren't happy. . . it made me 
> wonder about sexuality and whether or not monogamy made one
> healthier. 
> Well, I didn't get an answer, but it does seem that IF humans are
> 'naturally' monogamous, it would seem that these people had paid the 
> price for going against their nature. . .

Those are very appropriate scare quotes.  Whether a behavior is
the healthiest way to live, or whether it carries a psychological
price, has very little to do with whether it is natural.  Such
assumptions reflect the naturalistic fallacy (good=natural) that
is so common in these discussions.  To name an easy
counterexample, war is consistent with human nature.  There are
grave doubts that this is the least costly, 'healthiest', or best
way to resolve the conflicts that have caused it.

> ie I don't think that humans are not naturally monogamous because 
> they aren't monogamous. . .

The presence of polygamous cultures is proof that polygamy is
consistent with human nature.  The presence of monogamous
cultures is proof that monogamy is consistent with human nature.
Attempts to show that one of these is "more natural" than the
other in some deeper and universal sense reflects the desire to
read one's ethics into nature, or conversely, to usurp the word
"natural" to give weight to one's ethical arguments.  (Are they
so weak they cannot stand without such trickery?)

> ... I think that one would have to find a large incidence of
> happy polygamy to prove that they aren't

I know of no evidence that those in polygamous cultures are in
general less happy than those in monogamous cultures.  Even if
there is such evidence, it would NOT show that monogamy is
natural.  "Natural" does NOT mean "that which promotes the
happiest or best culture".  (Indeed, there is no reason to think
that nature works toward optimal happiness for individuals or
cultures.  In both cases, the qualities that are naturally
propagated are those that are encoded in memes or genes that are
successful at reproducing themselves in a given environment.
Individuals who are suicidal depressives may be less likely than
others to successfully reproduce, but those who are chronically
dissatisfied or who behave in ways that lead to conflict may well
do better at propagating their genes than those who are placidly
happy.)

Russell