Jealousy and Evolution

I have received additional comments directed at the original post on jealousy. The comments focus on the origins and utility of jealousy. I'd like to take some time to address them here.

It is true that an adaptation may be selected for because it solves one or several recurrent problems an individual or group is experiencing. The selection for the lengthening of the giraffe's neck may have given it access to previously unavailable food sources, and additional awareness of predators. Discerning what selected for a phenotype like this may be difficult. Distinctions of this sort become even more difficult to parse when speculating on the origins of human language or religion, given the increased complexity of the human brain. The emotion complex we call jealousy probably accumulated over time for numerous reasons. I expect that what we call love developed very similarly: over long periods of time, incrementally, with nuances selected for here and there. My criticisms revolve around our modern interpretation of jealousy. As far as I can tell, jealousy is doing next to no work for us today, but instead, much harm. So while an evolutionary account of the origin of jealousy may be inadequate, it is not necessary to criticize its effects. The example of racism again seems instructive here. It may be the case that the evolutionary explanation for our brain's tendency to form in-groups and out-groups is inaccurate or inadequate. We still, however, are well placed to criticize the results of this behavior. Only an argument showing that our current interpretation of jealousy actually makes us happier would disincline me to make further criticism.

It is feasible that individuals adopting this framework for understanding and combating jealousy might find themselves with fewer offspring. This additional selective pressure might prevent polyamory or more open-styled relationships from becoming the widespread sexual dynamic (and perhaps not). But I am not arguing for a dynamic which delivers us more people. Making our lives happier is the goal, quality instead of quantity. Procreation is very rarely the motivation for the sex and romance we desire in our lives. Very often, we engage in sex and romance despite their procreative potentials. This is why we use contraception and so forth.

It is said that raising children can be one of the most fulfilling experiences within the human potential. I wouldn't know from experience but I don't doubt it. But nothing in this criticism prevents this from being achieved. It seems to me rather that the early lives of children would be improved if they had additional parents to care for them (should that be a result of your relational dynamic). We already take this to be true in many instances, such as having a grandparents live within the home of the second generation while the third is developing. Some research has been done looking at the generosity of homosexual relatives. It seems that on average, homosexual relatives are more generous to the children of their brothers and sisters than heterosexual adults of the same relation. Kin selection theory makes it easy to appreciate why this is the case. I would imagine that this tendency could easily translate into settings with three or more romantically involved guardians, even in situations with only one child, guaranteeing that one of the guardians is not genetically related.