ProNihil

I was just wondering, all moral arguements aside, how close are we really to animals. If we are honest with ourselves, we will recognize the fact that the female of the species always goes for the one whom she thinks is the best provider, and that the males of the species always go for the best looking of the females. So, where does morality play a part in this basic of human endeavours? Are we truly moral, or do we act like it to ease our all to human shortcomings? Once again, this post is serious, and I would like to hear some intellectual thoughts on this matter, not, as will likely be posted, feminist dribble or chauvenistic pretense.

Seraphim

... we will recognize the fact that the female of the species always goes for the one whom she thinks is the best provider, and that the males of the species always go for the best looking of the females ...

My reply : Not every females are married to the best provider in a society NOR does all the male goes toward the best looking females.

In most societies, there are still exists "Love" where any factor other than financial gain or sexual urge places a part. If you ask couple who is in love why they choose each other while there are better options available, they could simply say that emotions plays bigger part in it than for personal gains. Humans pick their mate by who they are most comfortable with and sex usually something extra to spicy up the life.

This is my opinion anyway.

dangin

You want serious answers, we got em here baby.

First, you are on the right track, and if you want the science to back you up you need (at least) three books.

The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature,

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

The Selfish Gene

The most important thing is of course we are animals. What else could we possibly be? Everything about us is a product of our animal evolution and how that was shaped by both sexual and natural selection.

But your OP overstates our ability to select. Men do not go for the most attractive, they recognize the most attractive, (to them) and they may want it, but they will often settle for the "best they can get".

Women also settle for less but are usually more picky than males.

Also, simple attractiveness is not everything. Our brains play a big part in this, which is why ugly geniuses can get hot smart chics, and obscenely rich ugly men can get runway models, or at least Anna Nicole Smith. There is more than physical beuty in the equation.

Loren Pechtel

Disagree. My first requirement was for someone I would be happy with. Looks are desirable, not essential. In fact, my experience has been that the pretty women have quite a tendancy to be stupid bitches--their looks have let them get away with it.

dangin

Ummm, nice.

abe smith

Of COURSE we are animals. one exclamation-point.

And the more-firmly we cling to that ineluctable fact (WHAT! Smith! you accept a "fact"!?), the more-efficiently human processes will probably proceed.

Salmon of Doubt

We are closer to animals than people think. How do you know that when you feel in love that there wasn't some subconscious reason for choosing that person over someone else? It doesn't devalue your feeling of love, but there may be reasons for picking certain people that you aren't even aware of.

Morality and intelligence may also influence our choice of partner, but I wouldn't rule out subconscious 'animal' influences. Otherwise why would women fall in love with convicted murderers, etc? Some kind of attraction other than moral guidelines must be acting in such cases.

Absolutely. Trying to deny basic animal instincts exist at all in humans, and believing they can be overcome and erased with moral thoughts alone can only lead to a lot of problems.

Gringo

We're animals, but don't underestimate animals. They are capable of an do love. Mourning doves are not called mourning for no reason at all. When one dies, it's mate will mourn for weeks at times. I've seen an old dog mourn for another for weeks after it disappeared. One time, watching Discovery or PBS, I saw a young stallion soundly defeat an old stallion. He lost his entire herd, but one old mare stayed with the stallion. The young, more healthy, better providing stallion tried to force her to stay with the herd to no avail, but she loyally stayed with the old stallion. In the North American Encyclopedia of Birds, many altruistic behaviors of birds are listed, including an observation of several blue jays continously leading a blind blue jay to water. Many animals are capable of love, and every other emotion we sometimes refer to as "human" emotion. We have a common ancestry, emotions are seated in the more primitive areas of our brain. There's no reason to think that they don't.

Seraphim

... We have a common ancestry, emotions are seated in the more primitive areas of our brain. There's no reason to think that they don't.

My reply : Having animal traits (via genetics as suggested by Evolution) and being an animal is two different matter/issue.

Are you suggesting humans should throw away their sense of Intelligence and follow emotional traits (which humans and animals MAY have in common) just because they can (if they try)?

Is such act will still redeem Humanity as Civilized and Intelligence species?

What will following animal traits will accomplish?

Gringo

No way. I'm not saying that at all. Intelligence and reason are great survival adaptations. But we often refer to our humanity as an emotional concept. We usually refer to someone as humane if they have compassion or love, inhumane if they lack empathy or sympathy for another being. I was trying to credit animals, not discredit humans, who are still animals.