Lundi 1 Septembre 2008 -- Un Nigérien, âgé de 84 ans, a accepté sous la menace de bannissement de divorcer d’avec 82 de ses 86 femmes pour se mettre en règle avec la loi islamique qui n’autorise que quatre épouses, a rapporté hier l’agence locale NAN. Mohammadu Bello Masaba, habitant de Nupeland dans l’État central du Niger, “a accepté samedi soir de ne garder que quatre épouses pour se conformer avec le Saint Coran”, écrit l’agence. L’un des plus importants conseils islamiques du pays, le Jamatu Nasr il Islam (JNI), avait lancé le 21 août un arrêt de mort contre le polygame. Mais les autorités locales avaient décidé de lui accorder un délai de deux jours pour se mettre en conformité avec la loi ou, à défaut, de quitter le territoire de l’État. Les procédures de divorce vont commencer dimanche, précise l’agence.
so I just read that whole thread (minus the french bits), so I'm just gonna add a couple of points-
Polyandry does exist in nature, especially in birds, where the females need males to help collect food etc, so they have alpha and beata males. This seems to occur in the human race as well, when many women have kinds wth a 'Romeo' type, then find some guy to help raise their children, thus they have gotten the best genes. Obviously its not the polyandry everyone else was thinking of, but it is still a form of it.
Secondly, there are overall more females than males in humans, but there are actually more males born (or in some cases equal), than females, its just males have a shorter lifespan. So if men want to have 4 wives when they are 80, then go for it, because at that point there is enough 80 yr old women for them, but otherwise, that dynamic does not work.
Sex ratio: at birth: 1,04 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1,04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1,02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0,86 male(s)/female
total population: 1,02 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
showing that overall, its currently not possible that every man gets even one wife - let alone those who take two. I always joke thats why my partner had to out-source for me :P
Also, just to point out the thing about the zygote may be scientifically correct, but, from a Zoologists perspective, its missing out on half the argument, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. The cost of the zygote etc, and affecting the overall number of offspring, only really applies if the species is very small, because then the 'mother' will just want to help the species and continue in any way possible. In truth, (don't know if any1 has ever read 'the selfish gene', i haven't personally but have studied this topic a fair amount in Zoology), the female wants their own genes to be passed down, why does she want to help the male pass his genes down to others? She doesn't, or at least doesnt care whatsoever about him getting to pass on his genetics, she wants her offspring with her genes to survive, above all else, so she would rather he was monogomous, or even better, she be polyandrous (dunno if thats a word :P) so that her young would be even more likely to survive. For the same reason, the male would quite like to have lots of offspring to pass his genes on, and maybe it does have less of a cost, but that still doesnt mean the female is going to say 'oh that's fine, it's whatsever is best for the species'.
Also, i think I better say, if any of you do find this oh-so interesting (i wouldn't hold my breath though), and do think 'oh, maybe I should read the Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins', a word of warning, he is a very outspoken atheist, and there is a bit of saying how stupid it is to belief in...stuff. Hence why I haven't read it myself. (I read about 15 pages, then got hacked off beyond belief). There is no need for personal opinions of religion in science! But thats another conversation I suppose.
Favorites
Digg
Del.icio.us
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo MyWeb
Linear Mode
