Is having a life partner, a necessity, or a popular addiction? Romanticism is less than a 1000 years old, humans are 100,000+ years old.
This is a tricky one. The basic biology of Human beings dictates that humans are hardwired for connection—not necessarily romantic, mind you, but certainly social. Our species has thrived on cooperation and social bonds to enhance survival and reproductive success (Darwin is to be blamed for being right all along). This predates the relatively recent concept of romanticism by tens of thousands of years. The idea that one "must" have a life partner in a romantic sense is not ingrained in our DNA, but the need to form complex social networks is; considering the dopamine-driven reward mechanisms in our brain, one could cheekily argue that romance is somewhat addictive. As the great rick Sanchez once said, "listen, Morty, I hate to break it to you, but what people call "Love" is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed." It's true in all universes. Now the "need for a life partner" as viewed through a cultural lens is quite lucrative. The concept of romanticism, as you pointedly noted, is a millennium-old, emerging during the medieval period with notions of chivalrous courtship. This cultural construct has evolved and has been repackaged in numerous forms through literature, art, and media over the centuries. Each era adds its own layer, reinforcing or challenging the previous notions of what it means to have and to hold a life partner. We’ve danced around the idea romantically for just a sliver of human history, yet managed to buld complex societies and flourish as a species long before the first troubadour strummed a lovesick ballad. To make a full circle, towards your question: "Anything that helps you survive and makes you live long enough is a necessity in the disguise of addiction."
@VivanVatsa Very well articulated! I will be re-reading thid to fully process
@VivanVatsa @malikgarv so, Neanthradal theory?
@VivanVatsa @malikgarv Lovely. You write so well. 👍
@VivanVatsa @malikgarv Just one question ,is our definition of society the only one or are we not thinking broad enough ?