For a society to be viable it is not necessary that all members of it reproduce. It is only necessary that sufficient young are produced. Social insects such as bees and ants have only one mother at a time producing all the individuals necessary.

In fact one way our problem of uncontrolled population growth could be addressed would be for some individuals not to have children and others to have many children. I think that would be a better solution than the Chinese idea of one child per family where the result is in some cases to have a spoiled, self-centred brat. It is healthier to grow up with siblings than to be an only child. That is my opinion as an only child.

I favour methods of contraception being readily available, education for women so they may have other means of support than being a wife and mother and respect for those individuals who choose not to be parents. I think our prime minister who decided to devote herself to politics rather than child-bearing is an excellent role model.

I am not sure if this is satire. Why does the State have to involve itself in matchmaking? There are already private businesses out there doing just that and it is nothing to do with the State unless you are proposing some interest because of the focus on economic growth; or reducing overall costs of psychiatric care should life not go the way one desires.

If it is true that our DNA propels us toward reproduction, it is not always so that it has to involve a man and a woman. If a partner cannot be found many are going to sperm donors. Men are going to India to find 'incubators'.

The Prime Minister is no more a good role model than a person who decides to have children. The fact is both are possible it depends on what you want. The idea that anyone can have everything and do it all well is a bit of a modern day furphy.

Sometimes things don't work out, no point dwelling on what could not be got. Either get on with getting it or find another occupation.

Dear Pelican,

I agree. The prime minister is no more a good role model than a woman who has decided to have children. They are both good role models since they are both doing something worthwhile.

I had a Lib pollie in mind. He denigrated Gillard for being 'barren'.

Brian your DNA is in real trouble, having lost control.

Having developed a model where the whole herd, school, flock or tribe took over the nurturing at a reasonably early stage, it had written serial monogamy into our genes. Children would have a procession of "fathers" without disadvantage. Thus a greater mixing of genes improved DNA's prospect for survival.

In our more modern society this does not work too well. Our elites have bashed the idea of full monogamy into our heads, using things like religion, & social pressures, but the DNA is stronger.

Today it has trained ladies in particular to like full monogamy for their men, thus securing their provider, but likes them to add a bit of "foreign" gene from time to time, for hybrid vigor.

The easy going men have accepted their training by these ladies, & happily provide these foreign genes when requested, bringing down the wrath of the elites upon their head.

This clash of titans is causing many problems, leading to many young getting a pretty rough ride, not helping DNA's great scheme at all.

David f, you must admit that our prime minister is pretty damn barren, at least when it comes to having any good ideas.

Her DNA must have an ideas patrol, going round in her head weeding out any good idea that tries to take root in her brain, such as it may be.

Dear Hasbeen,

Our prime minister is a woman of virtue. Her virtue is that she is not Tony Abbott. I would trade them both in for a better prime minister which should not be hard to find. One of the tragedies of our society is that skill in winning elections or in gaining power is not positively correlated with skill in governing.

The advantage of having marriages arranged by a third party is that it gives both partners a common enemy.

Nice one Jon J.

"The female’s focus on security is DNA-driven. This is the reason that so many attractive women marry relatively powerful men - regardless of the man’s appearance."

Here's a secret Brian - the reason so many attractive women do that is because they've decided not to use their brains in the market place. They actually just want the money.

That's OK. I just wouldn't put it all down to DNA.

Imagine the compensation claims.

It's been said that the scariest sentence in the english language is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

I was looking for the punch line but could not find it. Is Brian serious?

R0bert

I think it's a very interesting, creative article. I can also see the benefits to the Government providing such a service, thus potentially reducing health (physical & mental) and other costs in the future, although it could potentially reverse if the Government "stuffs up" and doesn't match well - considering there is much that any Government in power doesn't do well.

Anyway - just interesting.

With the greatest of respect Brian, I have never read so much rubbish in an article on OLO before!

Perhaps you dream of joining the ancient times in the Jewish faith, when real matchmakers were used for all couples of Jewish faith?

"We observe that in all animals, the male pursues and the female chooses. That choice is based on her need for security. She subconsciously chooses the male who she feels can protect herself and her progeny. The female’s focus on security is DNA-driven. This is the reason that so many attractive women marry relatively powerful men - regardless of the man’s appearance. This is the reason that so many women stay with abusive partners."

Lol !
Human beings are a little further along the evolutionary scale than 'all animals' Mr. Holden. We aren't living in the jungle as apes anymore.

If women were to choose (subconsciously or otherwise) only males they felt could protect them and their progeny, then surely ALL males of small or weak looking stature, and/or poor finances would logically never find a mate?

I doubt that 'DNA-driven' women choose to stay with abusive partners because they feel a 'need for security' from these 'protective males'! Where on earth did you get that gem of information from?

I really don't see the logic or the point of this article at all?

'because in one day a single man can, theoretically, be the cause of up to 50 pregnancies '

I reckon I can go 51.

I only ever see men relate these ridiculous nature driven critiques of male-female relations. It's almost as if men find the whole relating to women as independent individuals so threatening they create these elaborite theories to clinicalise relationships and strip them of emotion.

Well, I'm not affraid of emotion. I enjoy 'love', I believe it exists and most often overrides biology to a large extent.

Sure there are feremones that rule initial attraction and such, but there's nothing particularly clever about denying people are individuals with emotions.

I suppose women more likely go the other way and get all wrapped up in overly emotional 'romantic' movies and want their life to run like that, but I think they in general have that as an escape. It scares me that some men seem to really believe the clinical analysis like the above.

Suzeonline-humans beings are a little further along the evolutionary scale than animals. Mr Holden. We aren't living in the jungles as apes anymore.

We may be cleverer in some ways than the animals, bear in mind that they also have some cleverer abilities than us also. Without our intellect to build sheilds and weapons we would be very quickly pushed to the bottom of the food chain by those animals you think are so far below us because of some of their superior capabilities.

In this way and many others the intellect serves the biological survival of the human being. Notice I said the intellect serves the biological. This relates to the point Mr. Holden is making so correctly and eloquently here. The human being is driven by the biological need to survive first and foremost, the intellect is the major tool by which he does this. Therefore the intellect is but a servant and a tool which the human being uses to obtain their driving underlying needs(hidden motivations and desires). Which are driven by our animal biology. What are the top desires of the human.


1. the buying of land and a home for shelter(survival instinct)
& also the biological need for
a nest to nuture &
protect the young.
(the nesting instinct)

2. the using of the intellect to get
a uni degree to obtain the income
to buy the best house,nest,etc. - the intellect serving the instinct -


3.The constant wars and genocide
between different strains of the human-- The biological territorial
survial instinct of the human

We are indeed driven by our biological(animal)instinct to find a mate(partner)as Brian points out. I am not sure about the state
love-match agency though.

Houellebecq- It scares me that some men seem to really believe the clinical analysis like the above.

I too wish that the idea of love and soul mates were true and it saddens me that I really believe that it is biologically driven and instigated by nature's chemicals. Especially in the early years of love when the attraction is really at it's peak. It's like nature sprinkles pixie dust in our eyes to encourage procreation. That's why the feelings are so intense in the beginning years. I believe fondness and a feeling of belonging and caring can often result from the long familiarity and shared life events but love in the sense that it is so romanticised in our society, I don't really believe in.

Nature is very clever, in that we think it is all our own emotion and feeling and that is just what nature intends. We should all enjoy the feelings of being in love and feeling like special soulmates though. Why not, it's a great way to feel.
Happy days and times are to be treasured in life