Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science does not want to embrace the nurture prospect because they do not want to offend sick mothers. It has to do with rejection by the mother (happens to all boys) followed by rejection of gender through guilt, fear or humiliation. Often times sick mothers with preexisting sexual abuse blame the men in their lives for their issues. Some mothers fear their sons without being controlled will one day hurt them or be more powerful. They doubt that they are in fact lovable. These are conditioned responses.
Think of the Greek goddess Athena, layered with a lesbian. Everybody knows she was no lesbian and the mother of orphaned boys. The rules of Greek goddesses are explicit, they are the most beautiful women on earth. It was Lilith who was protected by gay men. Gestalt psychology talks of unconditional positive regard. Nothing makes heterosexual or homosexual men more uncomfortable than a bull ****. The sight of them is repulsive simply by the ugliness of their spirit.
My understanding (very limited) is also that evolution is to benefit the individual. I am wondering if there are larger processes at work.
So I am thinking "are there any other adaptations in nature that benefit the society and which have no effect or even a deleterious effect on the individual?" Can anyone think of one?
No, at least not if you take the Anthropological view on existence. It really just ends up being a circular argument; The cooperative behavior of individuals looks to be only beneficial to the larger society and not to the individual, but individuals DO benefit from the existence of a society, which is why humans consistently create and maintain them the first place.
Another important fact to consider that self-preservation really boils down to preserving and perpetuating our genes (on a subconscious level)... not necessarily ourselves.
Here's an example of the dynamic at work:
Take kamikaze pilots in WW2... At first glace it would appear to be selfless devotion to Imperial Japan with no real benefits... I mean, you end up dead, right? What is there to gain?
But look deeper. A pilot chosen for a Kamikaze mission was dead before he ever climbed into the plane. Ever wonder what would happen to someone who refused?
They'd most likely end up at the wrong end of one these.
But if they accepted and fulfilled the mission with honor, they would die but their family (i.e. their genes) would enjoy prestige in the society and get a better chance at survival. Going to death as a Kamikaze is really just accepting the better selfish option (for their particular gene pool, that is), given the circumstance. They weren't gonna make it either way, but at least they could give a boost to their closest living relatives and increase the chances of perpetuating those all-important genes. It's the same reason most parents would risk their own lives for their children without any personal debate... the biological need to keep the genes going takes precedence over personal safety.
Anyway, if there was no society we'd be in a dangerous, insecure perpetual free-for-all... so we form, accept less-than-ideal societal circumstances and attempt to preserve society at great personal cost because the alternative is profoundly unbeneficial to the goal of perpetuating of our genes... and therefore sacrifice to the group is an essentially self-serving motive.
But you've gotta remember, this isn't law and people are often irrational. We can't get into their head to see their motivations before getting themselves killed doing something that appears entirely selfless, so we don't know if somebody died trying to save their dog from a house fire because they truly believed in preserving the sanctity of all life or if they had anthropomorphized the dog in their head and irrationally considered it as their "child".
Homosexuality isnt an evolutionary trait for depopulation at all. From what I understand, homosexuals still can AND do, willingly procreate and in no small numbers. And if they adopt, since being raised by straight parents or gay parents doesnt affect a childs sexual orientation, its not like the depopulation mechanism will be passed along to children anyway; so conceivably, one gay couple may or may not have any children, but that decision would have absolutely no bearing on whether their natural or adopted children would have a compensatory platoon of offspring or none at all. Also, we know, according to "scientific studies" that the younger males from larger families tend to be more likely to be homosexual. Well, what good is a population control mechanism if you have to have 40 children before it even kicks in? That doesnt make sense.
So, if it is an evolutionary adaptation, it is an extraordinarily incomplete and inefficient one, or a poorly formed one at best. Additionally, all other adaptations seem to form to protect the individual or enable them to be more efficient in one's environment/climate, and thus it enables the individual genetic strain to compete for continuance into the next generation -- or more plainly: a successive, or proactive adaptation geared toward the survival of the fittest individual on the micro scale (since we are talking evolution here), rather than a recessive adaptation ensuring that we all win in the end. And if it is an evolutionary mechanism for depopulation, it would be an unnecessary one as disease already acts as a population control. Unless one believes that homosexuals contract and facilitate more fatal disease among the general population; which homosexuality in itself doesnt facilitate disease nor is it predictive of fatal disease, so much as promiscuity and risky sexual practices.
Thats what I think about it. IDK but I fell off the blind-follower-of-scientific-dogma bandwagon when I saw just how corrupt and ignorant "science" itself can be. Members of the scientific community have proven to be every bit as racist and bigoted from both angles as anyone else. People like the scientific messiah, James Watson, who was even awarded the noble peace prize, swore up and down that other races, namely blacks, were inherently intellectually inferior to whites; this in accordance to his totally "scientific" comparative "studies" of human brains, of course. He also said that it would be ok with him, if mothers chose to abort gay fetuses based solely on their sexuality. Yet, men like him in the Western world laud themselves as the end all be all of knowledge because they have some receipt from a university. Psshh...
Maybe those who have become steeped in western philosophy feel compelled to worship these individuals in the western science community as the titular possessors of superior credibility on the study of human nature simply because they've declared themselves to be such, as is reenforced through their own academia -- But its a declaration of intellectual supremacy on the global stage, which at its base, is rooted in the the same racial supremacy, self aggrandizing, American exceptionalist ideology that has made America and the west the ethnically and economically stratified wasteland that it is recognized as today. Ah yes: American exceptionalism: "Just relax everyone, we have all the answers. We're the best. We're the world police, we'll colonize you and tell you whats best for you. Just sit back let our paternalistic Western 'Intelligencia'/Imperialists forcefeed you our ideology." But not everyone from different parts of the world has to accept nor respect Western science as the all knowing, all seeing, arbiters of science and reason just because westerners might consider them unevolved" or "ignorant" and "uneducated (in western philosophy)" for not doing so...
Last edited by soletaire; 06-24-2012 at 11:53 PM..
No, at least not if you take the Anthropological view on existence. It really just ends up being a circular argument; The cooperative behavior of individuals looks to be only beneficial to the larger society and not to the individual, but individuals DO benefit from the existence of a society, which is why humans consistently create and maintain them the first place.
Another important fact to consider that self-preservation really boils down to preserving and perpetuating our genes (on a subconscious level)... not necessarily ourselves.
Here's an example of the dynamic at work:
Take kamikaze pilots in WW2... At first glace it would appear to be selfless devotion to Imperial Japan with no real benefits... I mean, you end up dead, right? What is there to gain?
But look deeper. A pilot chosen for a Kamikaze mission was dead before he ever climbed into the plane. Ever wonder what would happen to someone who refused?
They'd most likely end up at the wrong end of one these.
But if they accepted and fulfilled the mission with honor, they would die but their family (i.e. their genes) would enjoy prestige in the society and get a better chance at survival. Going to death as a Kamikaze is really just accepting the better selfish option (for their particular gene pool, that is), given the circumstance. They weren't gonna make it either way, but at least they could give a boost to their closest living relatives and increase the chances of perpetuating those all-important genes. It's the same reason most parents would risk their own lives for their children without any personal debate... the biological need to keep the genes going takes precedence over personal safety.
Anyway, if there was no society we'd be in a dangerous, insecure perpetual free-for-all... so we form, accept less-than-ideal societal circumstances and attempt to preserve society at great personal cost because the alternative is profoundly unbeneficial to the goal of perpetuating of our genes... and therefore sacrifice to the group is an essentially self-serving motive.
But you've gotta remember, this isn't law and people are often irrational. We can't get into their head to see their motivations before getting themselves killed doing something that appears entirely selfless, so we don't know if somebody died trying to save their dog from a house fire because they truly believed in preserving the sanctity of all life or if they had anthropomorphized the dog in their head and irrationally considered it as their "child".
Like I said, "life is messy"
There were something like 3000 Japanese in the Philippines when the Americans found them. They couldn't feed them and they didn't have the manpower to hold them, so they shot them.
Variety in a species can help to protect and assure the survival of that species.
If all men and women procreated exactly the same (frequently came in contact with each other), then some disease (not necessarily an STD) could come along and wipe them all out at once!
However if you have some subset of men and women who might just procreate once or a few times in their lives, and not otherwise come in contact with the opposite sex, then that subset is safely hidden away and protected from exposure to certain diseases which could wipe out everyone else. (And the opposite.)
And not necessarily disease. This could include wars or natural disasters. Or maybe at one time there was a dinosaur which would go and gobble up entire tribes of people living in a group. Maybe that group banished a few who were different and those people were living away from that group - they could then procreate (maybe just once) and assure the survival of the group.
There are basically three sexes: heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. Whatever a person is psychologically that is his nature or his sexual leaning.
I'd admit that it gets complicated when there are bisexuals involved, but heterosexuals wouldn't tangle with homosexuals and vice versa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
