What happens in our artificial society while we gave up the assumption of the one
marriage for the whole life in the sense of agents pursue better mates in short term
relationship (cf. Buss, 1993)? Interestingly we could see a drastic drop of the population
growth: the negative population growth over time. In contrast, the average agent’s
economic circumstances (represented by the average capital owned by agents) are better in
the long run of the simulation. This is things that we could see in the more liberal society in
which social actors saw marriage is relatively not really a sacred thing while there is no
social pressure to keep the marriage goes on as some personal obstacles persist.
The sexual competition is apparently higher since agents become choosier as they
always look on the betterment of the relationship with other persons comparatively, sexual
relationship is related to fun much relative to as a part of institution of the reproduction.
Obviously, such micro-structure is not easy to find relatively in the places where the debates
between pro-life and pro-choice sex are rarely on the stage. Interestingly, the general
economic conditions between the two extremes places on which we laid our two poles of
assumptions are also distinctive.
Apparently, the better general economic a condition in the more liberal society is
somehow could be related to the issue on how agents perceive the notions of sacred
marriage for which the pro-life sex dominates most. However, we could apparently see that
the economic growth of a society is not as simple as thought by economists. The cultural
effects related to one thing, i.e.: how agents perceive marriage are things that should be put
into account to see those phenomena. Here, obviously this cultural situation can play a role
as one from a lot other possible ways, to be the positive feedback shaping economic
dimension of the social life.
Figure 6. The exponential growth of population as we give possibilities to agents to choose the mates
out of the fuzzification of the common sexual qualities.
Page | 8