How did Love Evolve

[Quiddity]

You're saying most people within the species never fall in love? Never love their families? Either you're being vague with your definition of 'love,' or you need to send me some statistics that I must be unfamiliar with.

You can love within the species. That's not what I am saying. I'm only saying that the larger the species gets the more vague love gets and it no longer is needed for a large species.

If you mean, judging from your most recent post, that the love a human being feels for a wife or child can not be extended to the WHOLE species, then yes, we're agreed. That's pretty much what I was saying all along, and maybe I was unclear - a person will not value all members of his/her species equally. However, all members of the species have the capacity to love AT LEAST one other being.

Then what are we disagreeing about? LOL...I agree with you.
My purpose was only to show that "love" is difficult to fit into evolution because caring can do the job. See what I mean?

Frankly, most species don't even need that much. However, I can see how caring would be all that humanity needs to move forward; I also happen to think that the bonds of love do humanity a service.

So do I, but I am still unclear as to how it came from evolution if caring does the job.

~Victor

 

[painted wolf]

I'm still fuzzy on the whole "love" vs. "caring" thing.... :bonk:

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

My purpose was only to show that "love" is difficult to fit into evolution because caring can do the job. See what I mean?

I do, and I'm glad we're on the same page now.

Following from what you said, which may or may not be true, you argued that the larger a species gets, the less need it has for 'love.'
Look backward a bit: what if this strong emotional attachment helped the earlier members of the species survive? If, when the population was small, love conferred survival benefits, then would it not follow that the species would not need to change? Even as it grew larger and 'love was not needed,' as you suggested, or 'love grew more vague,' humanity still had that instinct imprinted into it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My purpose was only to show that "love" is difficult to fit into evolution because caring can do the job. See what I mean?

I see that your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. A trait/attribute/capability comes into being not because it's necessary but as an unintended consequence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I see that your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. A trait/attribute/capability comes into being not because it's necessary but as an unintended consequence.

I thought that a trait came into existence because it improved the survivability of the species. My point previously was that if love causes one to care for the weak then the species becomes weaker. The reply was that it is not weakness but survivability that ensures continuation of a trait.

I would say that loving and caring for a weaker member or having to care for an unsurvivable infant for a number of years would weaken a species. Taking one individual and having them care for another would reduce that individuals ability to survive. This means that another individual is now responsible for three individuals (including themselves). Back in a time (evolutional speaking) when survival was difficult for humans (we aren't as large or invulnerable as say elephants, who care for their young for extended periods of time) this would not be advantageous and seemingly would cause extinction.

It would seem to me then that to exibit the characteristics of love would require outside assitance ie. God.

 

[Quiddity]

I see that your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. A trait/attribute/capability comes into being not because it's necessary but as an unintended consequence.

I took it as such because if you read back on this thread it was presented as something "necessary" for a group of people to have a higher survival rate. But now that you have corrected, perhaps you can provide your thoughts on how it came to be.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Look backward a bit: what if this strong emotional attachment helped the earlier members of the species survive? If, when the population was small, love conferred survival benefits, then would it not follow that the species would not need to change? Even as it grew larger and 'love was not needed,' as you suggested, or 'love grew more vague,' humanity still had that instinct imprinted into it.

Good point. You have officially clarified it for me. Thanks.

~Victor

 

[John Eastern]

Love is confined to the language it is spoken in, and in English, um, we be at a disadvantage, by comparisons to other older languages. Unless love is unspoken, in which case it devolved. It all does eventually. Love starts as a whisper, not a bang. A whisper makes you want to listen, whereas a bang destroys love. Oh, love is indestructable.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Love is confined to the language it is spoken in, and in English, um, we be at a disadvantage, by comparisons to other older languages. Unless love is unspoken, in which case it devolved. It all does eventually. Love starts as a whisper, not a bang. A whisper makes you want to listen, whereas a bang destroys love. Oh, love is indestructable.

Maybe a feeling is indestructible (rhetorically), but it certainly can be turned around.