Troll: You claim that taboos are instinctive. I argue that taboos are a result of a shared culture that precedes modern cultures. Me: How can cultural taboos be passed down from 100,000 years ago? Troll: That's pretty obvious: force and indoctrination. Many taboos (same sex marriage and interracial marriage) are just starting to be broken down. The same taboos existed in Medieval and some ancient societies as well. This really happened. Can someone please list all of the reasons this is ridiculous so I don't forget anything?
"Force and indoctrination" doesn't explain how the taboos arose in the first place. Does she seriously believe that someone woke up 100,000 years ago and thought, "You know what? I'm going to force/indoctrinate everyone around me to consider same-sex and interracial marriage to be taboo"? In all honesty, I don't think there was any form of marriage 100,000 years ago.
[Edited to fix the third-person pronoun.]
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
She thinks that the original prehistoric culture from Africa first developed those taboos.
Other entertaining quotes from the same person:
"Once parthenogenesis becomes possible, men don't need to exist anymore."
"Infanticide is justified as long as the babies are below two."
"Also, humans are naturally polygamous, so the family structure is biologically nonexistent. It's a social construct."
"Communists and Leftists tend to promote freedom of information. The conservatives are the ones who generally are against the dispersion of information."
"Almost all heterosexual unions emerged with the idea of suppressing women and making them inferior. There were a few matriarchal tribes that did not do this, and matriarchy and/or equality was more prominent in the Bronze Age, but most modern forms of traditional marriage originated with the idea of suppressing women."
Your conversation will probably go nowhere either way, as it is possible you are both speaking gibberish, and too attached to something.
However, if you want a shot at any productivity, you have toset up criterea and scope in order to get anything done at all. After that you guys are going to have to provide sources that can be verified to show what either of you two are trying to get at. Until that happens,you're both saying random things and asserting random claims.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Luminar:"Once parthenogenesis becomes possible, men don't need to exist anymore."
It depends on what she means by "need", but I think I understand what she means.
Luminar:"Also, humans are naturally polygamous, so the family structure is biologically nonexistent. It's a social construct."
Something tells me she actually means that humans are naturally promiscuous, as "polygamous" means "one male mating with multiple females, but not the other way around", where as "promiscuous" means "multiple males each mating with multiple females, and vice-versa". Based on our closest relatives (chimpanzees and [even moreso] bonobos), it seems clear to me that humans are indeed naturally promiscuous. Whence monogamy then? I think it arose as a social convention after the advent of agriculture, in order to mitigate STDs that were running rampant due to relatively explosive population growth.
Luminar:"Almost all heterosexual unions emerged with the idea of suppressing women and making them inferior. There were a few matriarchal tribes that did not do this, and matriarchy and/or equality was more prominent in the Bronze Age, but most modern forms of traditional marriage originated with the idea of suppressing women."
It would be interesting to find out what tribes she's talking about. Otherwise, I agree with her in a way. Monogamy did suppress women to an extent (read up on bonobos as to why). Certainly, once monogamy came about, men really started to think of themselves as owning the tribal land, because sons typically stayed there while the daughters typically left.
Infanticide is justified as long as the babies are below two.
Autolykos:Based on our closest relatives (chimpanzees and [even moreso] bonobos), it seems clear to me that humans are indeed naturally promiscuous. Whence monogamy then? I think it arose as a social convention after the advent of agriculture, in order to mitigate STDs that were running rampant due to relatively explosive population growth.
This argument is poorly framed. We are social animals, and so our social constructs are part of our biology. In addition, organisms try to maximize their chances of passing on their genes to successful offspring who do the same. This is also part of our biology. It seems that, at least for the majority of human history, it has taken the efforts of both parents to successfully raise children. When this is the case, animals more frequently form monogamous relationships. The reason why appears to be parental uncertainty. Males don't want to expend tons of effort making sure someone else's genes are passed on. The mother has no such concerns - the child is clearly hers. Ergo, the males attempt to control the mating habits of the females because they are the ones with the uncertainty problems. In return, the females try to ensure continued involvement by the male in providing for the offspring.
Of course this isn't the only possible arrangement. Bonobos have groups of unrelated females that run around with a group of related males and they cross-breed. However, with such low parental certainty the males also don't do much to take care of the children. They just try to fertilize as many of them as possible as often as possible. The females work together to make sure the kids survive, which they can afford to do because their natural habitat has enough resources to allow for it.
There are a lot of factors pushing and pulling to arrive at various optimal mating strategies, and one species could feasibly use or evolve to use multiple strategies if you arrange the factors in different ways. To say it isn't biological, though, is pretty far fetched.
There's one undeniable biological trait in humans that I'd like to point to as evidence for our inherent promiscuity. Human females have what's called hidden estrus. In just about every other species of mammal, the females are only sexually receptive at certain times. This is called estrus or "being in heat", and it coincides with ovulation. Human females don't do this. They can be sexually receptive at any time, whether they're ovulating or not. What's the advantage to this? Since mating tends to occur more often, paternity of offspring tends to be hidden, reducing the likelihood of infanticide by non-paternal males and increasing the number of potential caregivers. Ironically, the reverse situation occurs in bonobos - the females have lengthened estrus.
@OP: False Dilemma.
I don't see why taboos can't arise through either artificial (force, indoctrination) or natural biological (instinctive) reasons, but persist for through force and indoctrination. Clearly humans don't need a central authority and yet the taboo against liberty, and thus statism as a belief (indoctrination) and as a system (force), has proved effective at persisting long beyond any period of prehistory when such arrangements may have been instinctive and necessary for survival.
Or, why can't it be instinctive for humans with power to use force and indoctrination to perpetuate taboos beyond their period of social value? Given consistent patterns of human behavior throughout history, that seems perfectly obvious.
I would consider it self-evident that taboos, whether natural or artificial, persist through force and indoctrination.
@hashem Indoctrination yes, force no. Most societies that try to force their customs on themselves tend to self destruct, the destruction is even faster when they try to force their customs on others. Everyone grows up and is taught certain values and everyone is resistant to changing those values. Take cryptocurrency for example, Misesians are extremely resistant to calling any cryptocurrency "Money", and are even resistant to accepting that cryptocurrency could ever be money. Traditionally they have always advocated for gold backed currency so to promote any other form of currency is sacriligous. Misesians are not being forced in any way, they are just being held back by traditionally held values. BAM! You didn't know how I was going to smuggle in cryptocurrency did you? You knew it was coming but you just didn't quite know how. Ahahaha. I'm sorry.
Clever, I lol'd so...respect.
Anyways, I should have said force and/or indoctrination. My point was that the OP was presenting a false dilemma, and in that context my response holds.
Also, your claim that "societies that try to force their customs on themselves tend to self destruct" is no refutation of my example of statism and the taboo against liberty, however it arose, being perpetuated through force and indoctrination. Obviously, statist societies DO tend to self-destruct, so your objection is actually support for my argument.
100,000 years?
hashem: so your objection is actually support for my argument.
Hang on slow down.
Me: "...statism as a belief (indoctrination) and as a system (force), has proved effective at persisting..." (note: Statism as a system is force, its persistence relies on force.) You: "Indoctrination yes, force no. Most societies that try to force their customs on themselves tend to self destruct..." Me: "statist societies DO [persist through force and DO] tend to self-destruct, so your objection is actually support for my argument."
But it's all off topic. I was demonstrating that the OP presented a false dilemma. Clearly taboos, regardless of whether they arise naturally (instinct) or artificially (force and/or indoctrination), do persist through force and/or indoctrination. But further, regardless of whether a taboo is natural or artificial, it's obviously instinctive for people with power to perpetuate taboos which limit competition for their power.
Autolykos:There's one undeniable biological trait in humans that I'd like to point to as evidence for our inherent promiscuity. Human females have what's called hidden estrus. In just about every other species of mammal, the females are only sexually receptive at certain times. This is called estrus or "being in heat", and it coincides with ovulation. Human females don't do this. They can be sexually receptive at any time, whether they're ovulating or not. What's the advantage to this? Since mating tends to occur more often, paternity of offspring tends to be hidden, reducing the likelihood of infanticide by non-paternal males and increasing the number of potential caregivers. Ironically, the reverse situation occurs in bonobos - the females have lengthened estrus.
Luminar:"Communists and Leftists tend to promote freedom of information. The conservatives are the ones who generally are against the dispersion of information."