Barash on Biology and Monogamy

Evolutionary biologist David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, has a commentary in the Los Angeles Times in which he claims nobody is cut out for monogamy, but we can be monogamous anyway.

He points to our biology as the threat to our monogamy.

Researchers in animal behavior have long known that monogamy is uncommon in the natural world, but only with the advent of DNA "fingerprinting" have we come to appreciate how truly rare it is.

There's an assumption here. The assumption is that we are nothing more than animals that are nothing more than "meat machines", consisting of nothing more than a collection of molecules. I don't buy it; nor do I give blanket support to pointing to wild animals for moral standards in human beings - whether it seems to help or hurt "my" side. There is component to human nature that spiritual, and a strong distinction between human beings and wild animals. The biology is also different. In some cases, including some cited on this blog, we can learn some things from nature. But we must be careful when applying examples by wild animals to human behavior.

Greg Koukl covers these topics very well here, here, here, here, and here.

[Much more after the jump.]

Genetic testing has recently shown that even among many bird species -- long touted as the epitome of monogamous fidelity -- it is not uncommon for 6% to 60% of the young to be fathered by someone other than the mother's social partner.

Actually, this kind of thing is seen in human beings. Anywhere from 5% to 20% of children are not the biological offspring of the man presumed to be the father, depending on which studies you believe.

First, there can be no serious debate about whether monogamy is natural for human beings. It isn't.

Perhaps not for men.

But natural isn't necessarily good. Think about earthquakes, tsunamis, gangrene or pneumonia. Nor is unnatural bad, or beyond human potential.

Good points.

Our species benefits greatly from bi-parental care. We can profit from shared, reciprocated effort, especially when we're confident both partners will be around for the long term. In addition, human beings are endowed with an array of hard-wired traits that can be used to strengthen monogamy, among them a penchant (perhaps even a need) to attach and connect so-called mirror neurons that underlie empathy; hormonal systems, such as those involving oxytocin and vasopressin, that relate sexual satisfaction to pair-bonding; and neural plasticity that promotes the strengthening of brain circuits associated with repeated reward mechanisms -- including, in all likelihood, those activated via interactions with the same individual.

Barash seems to have taken great care to word the paragraph in a way that avoids promoting the uniting of the sexes, which is strange, since that is the only way for human biological evolution to naturally occur. The paragraph is a fancy way of saying that sex is better with someone you love, within commitment. While I agree, some people, especially some men, apparently get more enjoyment out of variety and experiencing something or someone new. I don't advocate placing personal enjoyment, especially in the short term, ahead of maintaining morality.

The more people reserve sex, especially intercourse, as something they only do with their spouse, the better off we are as a society, as such a behavior pattern:

1. increases the likelihood that a greater percentage of children will be raised within marriage

2. decreases the spread of STDs

3. reduces various forms of personal and social dysfunction and conflict.