Origins Of Love?

[Southwest]

So here's a challenge recently posed to me.

I've been talking atheism on my blog, and in one of the comments sections, one of the people I'm debating with posed the question, "If there is no higher power, where did love originate?"

And it's really stumping me. I can explain the feeling of love, at least to satisfy myself-- dopamine and all that jazz-- but I cannot for the life of me figure out where love originated in the whole evolutionary song and dance. I'm guessing somewhere near the abolishment of instinct. I figure it could be tied to the fundamental goal of organisms (to perpetuate the species). But I can't put the two together and explain the single-minded devotion to one other being that we call love.

Obviously, it can be perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". I'm just curious if anyone can fathom an answer to this.

Thanks.  

[Dathu]

Well, I'll take a crack at it.

First: 3 kinds of love.
~family (this includes friends)
~spouse
~children

We had to develop love for survival in the wild. We love our family and our family loves us, because if we didn't we'd all go and live solo, and humans couldn't survive on their own.

We love our spouse and our spouse loves us so we will protect each other. Couples who didn't probably let each other get killed, ending their lineage. We were bred to love. Plus all the deadly sex diseases that used to exists. Without love we'd be very promiscuous, and probably die.

We love our children because if we didn't we'd let them get hurt and die, ending our lineage.

People who didn't show one or all of these characteristics in the wild probably died, so only humans with these attributes survived. Love is a result of survival.

Of course, we've come a long way since those days, and now it's more emotional than survival, but that's still basically where it came from.  

[[Lucas]]

In Chinese, there is not a word for love. Uber-intelligent history teacher said that on his rant about love one day.

To take a stab at it, I'd say it went from an adaptation for survival to a strictly emotional thing over time, when it was not necessary for survival (we're quite spoiled when compared to people that long ago- not so many things to worry about).  

[caustic 0_0]

My pants. heart heart cool

Or pretty much what Dathu said.
I would say the need has always there for relying on eachother and living cooperatively, and love then serves to, well, give us a way to put up with it and make us actually want to stick together. There isn't much to keep someone devoted to raising children and protecting and helping family other than love. Humans can be very selfish. I would never change a single diaper for my own enjoyment. They only thing that will keep me from selling my kids on the black market will be love for them and my husband. I would say you can consider love and maternal instinct one and the same, or I guess love is a part of your maternal instinct.
Love definitely serves a purpose, but that still doesn't debase your feelings for someone just because it has a useful purpose.

Love is emotion, but it's those emotions that make you willing to settle down with someone and create a stable environment for creating and raising offspring. Those emotions also make you willing to provide for the less fortunate in your family in an attempt to prolong their survival as well.
My mother stayed married to my dad out of love. This love means a someone to fix my car and a second someone to help pay for college.

Another part of love that you can argue helps survival that wasn't mentioned already is compassion and love for your fellow man. (That sounds cliche as hell but I can't think of a better way to put it.) Things like the willingness to stop and help an injured person. There has to be something that makes you care enough to stop and assist them when it doesn't affect you personally.  

[Southwest]

.caustic.

My pants. heart heart cool

Or pretty much what Dathu said.
I would say the need has always there for relying on eachother and living cooperatively, and love then serves to, well, give us a way to put up with it and make us actually want to stick together. There isn't much to keep someone devoted to raising children and protecting and helping family other than love. Humans can be very selfish. I would never change a single diaper for my own enjoyment. They only thing that will keep me from selling my kids on the black market will be love for them and my husband. I would say you can consider love and maternal instinct one and the same, or I guess love is a part of your maternal instinct.
Love definitely serves a purpose, but that still doesn't debase your feelings for someone just because it has a useful purpose.

Love is emotion, but it's those emotions that make you willing to settle down with someone and create a stable environment for creating and raising offspring. Those emotions also make you willing to provide for the less fortunate in your family in an attempt to prolong their survival as well.
My mother stayed married to my dad out of love. This love means a someone to fix my car and a second someone to help pay for college.

Another part of love that you can argue helps survival that wasn't mentioned already is compassion and love for your fellow man. (That sounds cliche as hell but I can't think of a better way to put it.) Things like the willingness to stop and help an injured person. There has to be something that makes you care enough to stop and assist them when it doesn't affect you personally.

You and Dathu have helped me solidify a response to that challenge. Much thanks, you guys.  

[Southwest]

Double post, yeah, but I thought I might bump it up so it got a little more attention, as I received a response.

Quote:

So if love was a survival tactic, then do animals love eachother in the same way humans do? Do animals die for eachother? Do animals fall in and out of love? Do animals daydream about their love partners? Why do they change mates every season (most of them)? I mean, they survived this far didn't they, like us?

Furthermore, how do we explain where love came from? How do the high levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine start to rise? What triggers the production of these hormones?

Again, I need your help here, if y'all would care to aid me with this.

Much thanks.

Also...

Quote:

If anything, on average religous people live 10 years longer than non-religious...probably because they have hope and a positive out look because they believe that paradise awaits them. They score higher on "overall satisfaction of life" tests. That point is in support of your G.O.G. argument.

Dunno, anyone want to provide some factual evidence to counter these?  

[caustic 0_0]

Quote:

So if love was a survival tactic, then do animals love eachother in the same way humans do? Do animals die for eachother? Do animals fall in and out of love? Do animals daydream about their love partners? Why do they change mates every season (most of them)? I mean, they survived this far didn't they, like us?

Furthermore, how do we explain where love came from? How do the high levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine start to rise? What triggers the production of these hormones?

Animals do react to the loss of loved ones. At least some do. And some animals have life-long mates. But that's irrelevant to the point that was made.
The point that was made was that love can serve as a survival tactic FOR HUMANS. Humans are animals, but are still very different and capable of much more abstract thought. Because animals are not capable of loving eachother in quite the same way humans do, they don't need to. They don't conceive of it. They don't need it. Humans do so because they are capable of it. Each animal will 'love' as much as it is capable of.

And about hormones- tell their lazy ******** asses to do some research. It's ignorant to use your own lack of understanding as an argument against something.

The hormones are associated with desire and pleasure. You have an emotional attachment that serves a purpose and you have physical elements (hormonal reactions) that support it.
Here's some interesting stuff:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s49793.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4957
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4377
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2424049

Quote:

If anything, on average religous people live 10 years longer than non-religious...probably because they have hope and a positive out look because they believe that paradise awaits them. They score higher on "overall satisfaction of life" tests. That point is in support of your G.O.G. argument.

-Where is their factual evidence?
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
something that does support the claim-

link

link

(note the few factors they controlled in the experiment. Me comment on that later)
Also, there are any infinite number of factors that influence life span and satisfaction. How did they control all of these factors in the experiment so that the only difference was being religious/nonreligious? In order to make a claim based on statistics, they should provide their evidence in support of it and at least give a link or some source to where the information came from...statistics can easily be skewed and are worth checking up on.
My problem with this argument is how do you define religious vs nonreligious? Does saying you are religious and that you believe in something quallify? Nearly everyone I have ever known in my life has been religious in that sense. All of the nonreligious people I have known have not differed significantly from anyone else I've known other than that they don't claim to be religious. One of my best friends is religious, we have a lot in common and get along well. She's not more 'moral' than me. She's not any better off mentally. She's alot more high-strung and worries too much about everything. She stresses out easily. It's a mixed case with people. I've never been able to see a difference based on a religious/nonreligous distinction. Alot of people say they are religious but it doesn't really effect them in any way. Nothing changed for me when I made the shift from being categorized as religious to nonreligious. I didn't get depressed and kill myself, I haven't been in poor health, I haven't been more negative.. I'm the same person. If I had been in that study when I was religious, my response would have been the same as it would be now that I'm nonreligious. The point- there are many more factors, and stronger factors, at play than religious/nonreligious. Pretending that's the only difference between people and that grouping based on sex/race is going to account for everything else is, well, naive. They can't possibly account for every aspect of 'nature and nurture.'  

[Tixmia]

That's as dumb as asking why we feel happiness or sadness or anger!  

[Lynn-The Killer Beauty]

All I can say to that is, love comes from the same place as any other feeling...It's just there.....Love is a very complex thing to understand. I do believe it is the universal equivalent to "Just smile and act like you know what's going on".  

[Sanguvixen]

The thing that gets me is "Where is proof that love is real?"

I mean....love, hate, anger, jealously, malice....those are all things we "feel inside".....and yet there is nothing prove it's existance.

I have a very vicious relationship my idiot older brother. Sometimes I sit back and try to figure out the basic origins of my pure hatred for him.

I hate him....every time I see him a flair of anger bubbles up inside of me, and I feel these extreme emotions.

I remember one day I sort of wondering over my entire existance and his existance, and the conflicts and found a very interesting conclusion...an almost genious one. Yet I went to sleep and forgot everything I thought of.

Now I try to think....I don't understand the concept of love very well, because none in my life have ever truelly loved me.

So the only feeling"emotion" I can try to understand is hate. Who do I hate most? My own older brother who made my life miserable hell.

Feelings are so strange. You can feel it, but what is the reason?

Humans have this thing about the abstract...and it fascinates me. I love abstract chaotic art....and when it comes down to it....it does no good to question the origins of love....

I think you first must figure out the origins of all feeling...the ability to feel this abstractness inside you're body. The easiest way to analzye the feeling you feel the most.

The only thing more complex to understand than love is hate. That is why we are having a hard time with the terrorists. They thrive on hate, aggresion, and murder.

In order to understand and destory them you must first understand the underlying principles.

It is those principles that evade my mind.

 

[Ice Fenix]

I think love is only a name for a state of being where euforia predominates, cuased by some neurochemical substances. That's just about it, and we've always had them. Animals have it too.  

[E_Night]

I don't think one feels "love at first site" its not really love its infacuation right? I mean omg a hot guy with dreamy eyes walks bye, he is considered "hot", he walks over and talks to me and I get the feeling of infacuation. Its sorta how Romeo and Juliet felt. Romeo was on the rebond and well Juliete was too young to know. They were infacuated and not thinking clearly. Does one need to be infacuated at first to love? I think so because love comes over time i think. Its a strong feeling that you want to care, be with, and satisfy your partner with all your being.  

[Merciless Darkness]

I have found that love between the spouses usually just starts off with Infactuation, Sexual Desire, and Physical Attraction. It don't seem to grow much past that.

 

[Arcanis Arcanil]

It's instinctual I say, I just wrote a bit on it in my journal.  

[Dathu]

Ya know, looking back I just thought of a contradiction to my own post: what about when love makes people kill themselves?