This was a minor discussion that grew. It relates to family so it's also something very basic to morality. I'll leave it in the form it grew in.

          *

When studying this subject one of the things that amazes me the most is just how far reaching and complete the strategic changes look like. One of the best cases is a very good example because it goes to the heart of morality. Morality is about survival, but in terms of topics it's about family because that is simply a major portion of how we survive. Sociobiology describes how in typical mammals we see the males aggressively competing with each other for access to females and females using their own strategies to attract the fittest males. It's sort of a quantity strategy for males and a quality strategy for females. Women have often been considered property and wealth. Beauty has been considered a value to be owned by men. Humans are more monogamous because the long demanding childhood of humans means that two parents are needed to successfully raise children. So since males are limited reproductively sort of like females, one would expect that the males would lean towards using on the quality strategy of females and be looking for the fittest mate rather than as many as possible. In ways that is certainly the case but there is something far more novel. It is not rare for a woman to simply choose a male. It's hard to say why she chooses him. It could be for a number of reasons including perceived fitness, perhaps smell suggesting complimentary anti-bodies or other reasons. There is the archetype of females bonding to men that "save" them. This is not unprecedented in mammals, but in human history it is pretty unprecedented. It seems very unusual in the tribal societies we know of where women were mostly considered possessions to be fought for. It's impossible for me to guess about in "early" tribal societies when cooperation was more important. The point though is that all through known history we have had mostly patriarchal societies where the men made choices and women were the prizes. There is a lot of reason to think that female choice will become more and more common in the future. That represents a very large and significant change in moral strategy. This is less about describing what the strategy of the future will be than what it will not be. What it will not be is what it has been in used in the past where the woman has little or no choice based on violence determining who owns her. You may have the same scenario as above where a woman selects a man, but instead the selection is done by the male. It still leaves a choice for the female. You may have all kinds of ways for males to compete for status so that a woman will choose them. I'm curious if it's possible that the future will see "arranged marriages". It seems unlikely and in the past those have usually been about "wealth" preservation. That wealth might even be genetic. Still, the idea of women not getting to make a choice about their mate just seems to conflict with everything I can think of about a strategy of civilization that is not under some kind of enormous stress.
          *

This is short, but it is a description of a great deal what is most important to the topic of morality. Also, one of the over riding goals of writing this book is to keep it short. The point has been made, not about as much about an unpredictable future, but about a past strategy that will not work in the future. As s the case of many topics there is a great deal of modern, pragmatic, how-to literature about dating and mating. A person should read it before trying it. Dating and Marriage are short, though important periods in a person's life. The more complicated topics associated with this are Status and Family.