In regard to Dumar's statements:
I meant like tests to show that we can be something other than what we have.
Basically the same thing that Trollface already asked. Who decided that the current norms of "love" is wrong? Actually, let me rephrase that to use the words you did...who decided that EVERY norm of EVERY civilization of EVERY time period humans have ever had is defective? I mean, did some of these guys just decide they weren't getting enough pussy and therefore our version of "love" and relationships are wrong? Or is there some sort of data to actually back these claims up?
Are we the only ones capable of this enlightenment? Because every other living being that I can think of has the biological imperative to spread its dna/genes/progeny as far and as wide as possible. Even plants, insects (hive mind or not, even those work solely for the benefit of the queen, who will further the lineage), bacteria...anything you want to name that we consider living, all it is really trying to do is fuck as much as possible and have as many babies as possible. Humans are really the only ones that have really detoured from that objective of spreading our seed far and wide even a little bit.
Now, animals and plants clearly do not specifically think of the cost/benefit ratio of their actions most of the time, but neither are they capable of any sort of selfless love (dog owners notwithstanding). So it is just us humans. And from everything we know, since Day 1, we've been doing things more or less the same way, with some sort of market structure. Can I kill Ooga in order to fuck his woman Booga, or will he kill me instead? Can I rape and pillage this peasant village and get away with it? Can I convince that girl in my English class to go on a date with me?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that things maybe shouldn't be a little different, but I'm not seeing how it can have been wrong throughout our entire existence like these guys are claiming. We wouldn't have made it to this point, in my opinion, if we didn't have the sort of system we've always had. So where is the hard evidence that it is wrong, and that this other way is right? It's like saying two plus two does not equal four. It doesn't matter that we've always thought it did, that was just a social neurosis that everyone bought into, it should really equal five. But the only reasoning I have to give you is that I know it is wrong. That's a terrible example of course, but where is the quantifiable evidence that this other way is right and ours is wrong?
I'd love to have this concept of love you've put out there, don't get me wrong. But how do you possibly get there without one party or the other, if not both, deciding that it is in their best interest to do so? That's inherently a value judgment, with cost/benefit ratio, blah blah. And at every stage there is further value analysis, do I stay with this other person or get a divorce, or screw around, or have kids, etc. It isn't always like that, but even when you just love someone so much, you're still subconsciously deciding that it is worth it to you to stay with them. How can you possibly remove those judgment from the equation? The only way I can even remotely envision it is if we are paired with someone else randomly, with no choice in the matter, but we're just fine with that and every single pairing falls madly in love. I truly cannot imagine that every happening unless millions of years from now we are totally unrecognizable as humans and don't have many of the brain centers we do today. No jealousy, no greed, no hatred, no lust, no ambition, no sense of individuality...basically lobotomized robots. If there is another way you think this can happen, I'd love to hear it.
As an aside, I'm not very fond of the whole "value" thing, "negging," Game Theory, all that jazz. So I'm not arguing to keep it around. I'm just wondering where in the hell these philosophers, sociologists, etc. found the basis for their arguments.