10 Responses

  1. JDG

    I agree with your prospective. IMO those that view marriage as a subsidy are viewing wrong, especially when one considers that marriage is intended as a reflection of Christ and His church.

  2. Donal Graeme

    Much of this nonsense stems, in my view, from the overly fond attachment some men hold in these parts to the concepts of “Alpha” and “Beta” (or “Omega” or any other term). They attach to them genetic preferences or superiority which are not at all clear-cut. In fact there are many who fall into definitions of “Alpha” who are clearly of questionable “genetic pedigrees”, if one wants to hew to such beliefs.

  3. mdavid

    There is simply no room in a Christian worldview for the idea that it is in any way appropriate for a certain segment of the population to be excluded from mating (or any of the other fruits of human life) on the basis of an a priori exclusion resting on a merely human evaluation of their worth based on assumed genetic quality.

    I don’t think this is untrue, but I think it misses the root of the issue. Which is: does marriage 1.0 restrict the natural breeding of humans (which historically has polygamous tendencies and led to selected male genetic distribution with a large minority never breeding)?

    Now I’m not claiming one or the other. But it does give me pause to think that 5 million years of human evolution has not been marriage 1.0 and most men never pass on their genetics while women were the fertility “gatekeepers”. Then wham comes marriage 1.0 and the obvious success of it making it a new evolutionary phase for humans that we don’t know much about. It’s hard to say what the outcome will be…especially since Paul leaned toward no marriage at all. One possible future: 25% of men and women breed and the bulk enter chaste vocations. Or a sizable minority tend toward homosexuality for a sort of “worker bee” that helps the tribe more than breeding…allows for more investment in children. But what seems unlikely is that overnight (in evolutionary terms) humans will swap from a large minority of men never passing on their genetics to most doing so seems unlikely. Women are predisposed to not waste the womb and to avoid men who don’t cut the mustard. Marriage 1.0 is really tough on the lower SMV women, from an evolutionary POV.

  4. Random Musings And Links- #3 | Donal Graeme

    […] Novaseeker over at Veritas Lounge asks the question: Was Marriage 1.0 A Dysgenic Mating Subsidy? […]

  5. seriouslypleasedropit

    It absolutely is a dysgenic subsidy.

    But—so what? The market and natural selection will never be satisfied. There is no point at which your career would not improve with more effort, your product would not sell better with lower prices, etc. And there is no level of human “fitness” (remember that evolutionary fitness is a derived, retrospective concept, not an innate, prospective one) that will cause women to decide in book club that the genes are good enough, time to marry any random guy because they’re all great. Will never happen.

    Since we know we’ll never reach that point, why kill ourselves trying to get there with explicit eugenics? Simple (not easy) chastity gets you 90% of the benefit with 30% of the pain. Perhaps 0%, depending on how you’re counting.

    We have a saying in the LDS church that people can be guilty of “looking past the mark” — rather than obeying the Lord and trusting that it will be alright, some will decide to overobey and pay 20% tithing, read the scriptures for three hours a day, etc. In our daily lives, the the Gospel is much more about satisficing than optimizing.

  6. Höllenhund

    There’s a different dysgenic mating subsidy in force today: welfare payments to single mothers. If a woman is unable to elicit commitment from any man, should she be paid with tax dollars to breed?

    TFH is probably right that women were never attracted to the men in the bottom third of the male sexual hierarchy. But it’s also true that many of their female peers – maybe half or two-thirds of them – are universally unattractive to men as well. It’s a stretch to say that most of the women in the bottom third of the female sexual hierarchy have a chance of becoming mistresses or second wives. Look at any culture where it’s pretty much accepted for higher-status men to have mistresses and secons wives. Those women are usually young and above average in looks.

    Again, the argument that marriage 1.0 was a dysgenic mating subsidy ignores the fact that it doesn’t genetically benefit the human race if all women breed. It’s another example of the unspoken assumption that women are all potential wives and mothers by virtue of having wombs.

  7. mdavid

    Höllenhund, “Again, the argument that marriage 1.0 was a dysgenic mating subsidy ignores the fact that it doesn’t genetically benefit the human race if all women breed.”

    Evolution has no “benefit” per se. It merely is what is. In one era high culture and k-strategy works, in another it falters.

    Think back to the slow Celtic near-extinction in Europe by the Germanics (pushed to the worst land in Ireland & Scotland) and then how the discovery of the new worlds gave the Celts a new lease on life with their r-high-breeding strategy of low investment. One sees the same thing going on in America today. In one era, your “benefit” is a genetic liability, and vise versa. God has his own plans, methinks.

    1. Höllenhund

      The argument that Novaseeker is addressing is that evolution benefits the human race, therefore some sort of natural selection should be permitted by doing away with Marriage 1.0 in order to ensure that lowly men with lowly genes don’t breed. The whole idea is based on the notion that evolution has benefits and is thus inherently good.

  8. The Varieties of Power

    […] bene:  I’ll be shortly publishing a follow-on by Escoffier about the topic in this post.  While that follow-on is being edited for publication, I’m posting this, which is a kind of […]

Leave a Reply