Santiago Lario Ladrón

In order for the process of hominization to continue, with its prolonged and extreme period of juvenile defencelessness, it was necessary, or at least convenient, for males to more actively participate in the care of females and offspring. This necessity, together with the abrupt loss of hominid sexual dimorphism starting with Homo ergaster (more than 1.5 million years ago) suggests to the authors that our ancestor’s sexuality might have evolved around the same time from an earlier state of polygamy to monogamy. Taking into consideration our meagre dimorphism, small relative testicular size, and interest for living in partnerships, monogamy may still persist in modern Homo sapiens. This theory would allow for new perspectives regarding the complex suite of enigmatic emotions have plagued modern humans since our beginnings.

Zaratustra, y muy especialmente sus dos primeras partes, son un canto al Superhombre. La mayor parte de filósofos, capitaneados por Fink y Heidegger, ven ese nombre como una especie de seudónimo del hombre que conoce y acepta las doctrinas del eterno retorno y-o de la voluntad de poder. Y nos ponen en guardia contra el exceso de términos biológicos que Nietzsche utiliza e incluso sobre el que pueda ser su verdadero significado (empezando por el de la misma palabra “vida”). Una labor que no tendrán más remedio que hacer extensiva a algunos de los párrafos que podemos encontrar en los Fragmentos Póstumos escritos por Nietzsche en esas fechas y que no se dejan tergiversar tan fácilmente (unas notas utilizadas tan solo para uso propio y que por lo tanto no tienen por qué haber sido acicaladas): “la humanidad no tiene un fin; pero puede darse uno: no un final, no conservar la especie, sino sobrepasarla” [4 (20)]; “¡El hombre es el pretexto para alguna cosa que ya no es el hombre¡ ¿es la conservación de la especie lo que queréis? Yo digo: ir más allá de la especie” [5 (35)]; “Mi reivindicación: crear seres que estén por encima de la especie “hombre”; y para ese fin sacrificarse a sí mismo y al “prójimo”. [7 (21)]. El significado, cuando menos aparente, de estas frases parece claro. Mientras que para Darwin la evolución ha acabado con la llegada de nuestra especie, el Zaratustra de las dos primeras partes acaricia la idea de ir un poco más allá. Aunque tal vez esa ilusión sea tan esotérica como fugaz.

This book considers the likely existence of a gene responsible (or at least jointly responsible) for our desire to live as a couple and for us falling in love (this being understood as the exclusive, violent, possessive and total attraction toward a person which strikes us every once in a while). As its pages gradually reveal, the origin of these phenomena cannot be reduced (at least not only) to cultural-type influences, as has been maintained for centuries, but rather would be favoured by our biology and our genetic heritage. This gene would have first existed in hominids prior to our species (most probably, as the authors specify later in another book (2) and in some articles posted on the Internet (3), in homo ergaster, coinciding with the drastic reduction in body differences between the sexes which took place in that species). This would explain our preference for living as a couple, the existence of those passions which have proven to be a headache for all thinkers and even the presence of jealousy. However, the action of this gene, decisive in the behaviour of those prehominids, would now be much weaker, more confused and sporadic in the face of the rules, imposition and direction of our sophisticated brain and the important changes of habitat that our lives have experienced. It also envisages the possible existence of variations in the presence of this gene which could help us to explain the important differences in individual behaviour as far as our sexual relations are concerned, and even the possibility that its action could be restricted (or boosted) in one of the sexes. Reviews Their theories have not a wide impact (indeed they have almost been ignored), but some of the latest scientific discoveries appear to support them. Thus, a group of Swedish researchers from the Karolinska Institutet (4) demonstrated that the AVPR1A gene, responsible for the monogamy of other species (5), also acts in our species, increasing the fidelity and quality of a couple’s relationship (although its action appears to be restricted to the male), although the difference in behaviour between carriers of the active gene and of a faulty, and therefore inactive, gene is fairly weak and thus not sufficiently demonstrative. It is true that their work mainly studied the effect that the presence of this gene appears to have on the stability of the couple (only couples who had lived together for five or more years were studied), to the extent that it has been called the fidelity or monogamy gene. It is, however, almost impossible for this gene to be able to fulfil this mission without its activity being reflected in an inclination, an affection and a very special fondness which, although it emerges in the innermost part of our biology (in that mysterious area that poets call the heart), will rise into our consciousness as a special feeling very close to what we usually call falling in love. The AVPR1A gene may therefore be that “love gene” whose existence this book anticipated (6, 7, 8). Later Bibliography (1) Luis Santiago Lario Herrero, Marisa Lario Herrero y Santiago Lario Ladrón: El gen del amor, Ediciones del Bronce, Barcelona, 1996. (2) Luis Santiago Lario Herrero y Santiago Lario Ladrón: Condenados a amar, El Cobre, Barcelona, 2002. (3) Luis Santiago Lario Herrero y Santiago Lario Ladrón: Homo sapiens: ¿una especie monógama? A Parte Rei, 2003. (4) Hasse Walum, Lars Westberg, Susanne Henningsson, Jenae M. Neiderhiser, David Reiss, Wilmar Igl, JODY M. Ganiban, Erica L. Spotts, Nancy L. Pedersen, Elias Eriksson and Paul Lichtenstein: Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behaviour in humans,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, (37) 2008. (5) Miranda M. Lim and Enhanced Partner: Preference in a promiscuous species by manipulating the expression of a single gene, Nature 429, (2004). (6) Luis Santiago Lario Herrero. El gen de la monogamia podría actuar también en humanos. Tendencias 21, 2008. (7) Luis Santiago Lario Herrero y Santiago Lario Ladrón. ¿Se ha encontrado ya el gen del amor? A Parte Rei, 2009. (8) Luis Santiago Lario Herrero y Santiago Lario Ladrón: La antropología de Deus caritas est. A Parte Rei, 2007.