The Monogamy League Table Reveals a Humbling Reality for Humans
In a study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers from the University of Cambridge have ranked 35 species by their reproductive habits, revealing that humans are not the sole masters of monogamy. Instead, we find ourselves sitting comfortably in seventh place, narrowly edging out our meerkat cousins and narrowly missing out on top spot to our beaver friends.
When it comes to understanding human relationships, anthropologists often focus on societal variations within human populations. However, this study takes a step back to examine how humans would rank if we were any other species of mammal. The findings suggest that while many mammals engage in more promiscuous mating habits, humans have adapted to a monogamous lifestyle.
The researchers analyzed genetic data from various animal and human studies to determine the proportions of full versus half-siblings for each species. This approach revealed that societies with higher levels of monogamy tend to produce more siblings that share the same parents.
Interestingly, human rates of monogamy varied significantly across over 100 different populations. At one site in the Cotswolds, only 26% of siblings were full siblings, while in four Neolithic populations in northern France, a staggering 100% of siblings shared the same parent.
The top 11 species on the list are all considered to be monogamous, with the California deermouse taking the top spot at 100%. Humans rank eighth with a rate of 66%, just ahead of meerkats and white-handed gibbons. Beavers take the top spot in terms of full siblings, followed closely by moustached tamarins.
But what does this mean for our understanding of human relationships? As Dr Mark Dyble, one of the researchers behind the study, notes, "As anthropologists, we're interested in understanding the variation across human societies. This is taking a step back from that and saying, OK, if we were any other species of mammal, we'd be broadly content with characterizing ourselves as a monogamous species."
Robin Dunbar, professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Oxford, adds that previous work has suggested humans are "right on the cusp between monogamous and polygamous species." While some animals pair up for life, humans are often kept together by social pressures such as religion.
The study raises an interesting question: what would happen if humans were to shed these constraints? Would we revert to a more polygamous lifestyle, or could we adapt to something entirely new?
Dr Kit Opie, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Bristol, suggests that both promiscuity and monogamy in humans may be counterstrategies to male infanticide, which is prevalent in large-brained primate species. Females either try to confuse paternity through promiscuity or provide paternity certainty by forming pair bonds.
The findings of this study serve as a reminder that even among the most human-like creatures, there are vast differences in reproductive habits and social structures. As we continue to explore the intricacies of human relationships, it's clear that our understanding of monogamy is far from complete.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers from the University of Cambridge have ranked 35 species by their reproductive habits, revealing that humans are not the sole masters of monogamy. Instead, we find ourselves sitting comfortably in seventh place, narrowly edging out our meerkat cousins and narrowly missing out on top spot to our beaver friends.
When it comes to understanding human relationships, anthropologists often focus on societal variations within human populations. However, this study takes a step back to examine how humans would rank if we were any other species of mammal. The findings suggest that while many mammals engage in more promiscuous mating habits, humans have adapted to a monogamous lifestyle.
The researchers analyzed genetic data from various animal and human studies to determine the proportions of full versus half-siblings for each species. This approach revealed that societies with higher levels of monogamy tend to produce more siblings that share the same parents.
Interestingly, human rates of monogamy varied significantly across over 100 different populations. At one site in the Cotswolds, only 26% of siblings were full siblings, while in four Neolithic populations in northern France, a staggering 100% of siblings shared the same parent.
The top 11 species on the list are all considered to be monogamous, with the California deermouse taking the top spot at 100%. Humans rank eighth with a rate of 66%, just ahead of meerkats and white-handed gibbons. Beavers take the top spot in terms of full siblings, followed closely by moustached tamarins.
But what does this mean for our understanding of human relationships? As Dr Mark Dyble, one of the researchers behind the study, notes, "As anthropologists, we're interested in understanding the variation across human societies. This is taking a step back from that and saying, OK, if we were any other species of mammal, we'd be broadly content with characterizing ourselves as a monogamous species."
Robin Dunbar, professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Oxford, adds that previous work has suggested humans are "right on the cusp between monogamous and polygamous species." While some animals pair up for life, humans are often kept together by social pressures such as religion.
The study raises an interesting question: what would happen if humans were to shed these constraints? Would we revert to a more polygamous lifestyle, or could we adapt to something entirely new?
Dr Kit Opie, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Bristol, suggests that both promiscuity and monogamy in humans may be counterstrategies to male infanticide, which is prevalent in large-brained primate species. Females either try to confuse paternity through promiscuity or provide paternity certainty by forming pair bonds.
The findings of this study serve as a reminder that even among the most human-like creatures, there are vast differences in reproductive habits and social structures. As we continue to explore the intricacies of human relationships, it's clear that our understanding of monogamy is far from complete.
. I mean, think about all the relationship dramas and break-ups we see on social media every day. It's like we're constantly trying to be polygamous, but at the same time, people are still holding out for that one special someone 
.
. It makes me wonder what kind of social pressures would lead us to shift towards a more polygamous lifestyle.
. That's a pretty wild theory, but it makes sense when you think about it. Maybe we just need to rethink what we mean by "monogamy" and see if there are other ways we can prioritize relationships that don't involve exclusivity 
.
. It's made me realize how much we don't know about human relationships, even after all these years of studying them 
.
. It makes me wonder what would happen if we just did whatever felt right in the moment, you know? Would we be more promiscuous or something new entirely? The possibilities are endless 
But at the same time, it's cool to see humans aren't as alone in our relationship struggles as we thought.
.
.
Meanwhile, beavers are just over here building dams and having like, a hundred babies with different partners? 
It's all about perspective, right?
. The idea that humans are actually polygamous at heart but our societies force us to be monogamous is a pretty wild concept 
. I'm definitely not shedding the constraints of monogamy anytime soon, but it's definitely made me think twice about my own relationships 
.
meerkats are way more monogamous than us! 66% of our relationships being monogamous is still pretty impressive though 
. It makes me wonder if we'd be more chill if we just let go of those societal expectations and adapted to our own unique way of doing things 
.
.
.
. It makes me wonder, are humans just naturally inclined towards non-monogamy when they have the freedom to choose their relationships? 
- yikes, that's some serious commitment! 
- who knew they were so into family ties?