Quote: (03-19-2013 08:11 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
From an evolutionary point of view, I don't imagine either of these guys are going to be very motivated to contribute to the "family" beyond a bare minimum. Why should they, if 4 of them are actually raising some other alpha's spawn? I don't think this is a bad solution per se, it's just kind of... false harmony.
Well, they are brothers. So the kid has the same genetic material regardless of which one is the father.
In the south of India men have traditionally been encouraged to marry their first cousins or their nieces (sister's daughters). Like the above case of the woman marrying brothers it's done to keep property in the family line. That increases the evolutionary success of the family.
It looks strange from our perspective, but both of the above cases work and make sense in evolutionary terms.
It isn't comparable to oddball poly-queer-feminists in the West who choose polyandry out of ideology. In fact this is the biggest failing when feminists draw on anthropology to attack 'patriarchy' and justify alternative lifestyles. They pick examples like this, or examples from matrilineal societies, or examples from bonobos, and completely disregard the context and evolutionary impetus behind the behaviours they point to.
"A flower can not remain in bloom for years, but a garden can be cultivated to bloom throughout seasons and years." - xsplat