Peez

Note that, in general, natural selection does not favour traits that help the species to survive per se, rather natural selection favours traits that help individuals to survive and reproduce. Often this also results in traits that help the species to survive, but natural selection will generally favour a trait that increases individual reproductive success even if that trait decreases the species' chance of survival.

Peez

David M. Payne

Interesting replies guys.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pz:
This is complete nonsense. The assumptions are just bizarre: the idea of a teleological necessity in evolution is unfounded.

As for whither this is complete nonsense perhaps, we'll see. Bizarre? It's a question or two on how humanity deals with the problem of overpopulation and the sex drive, I'm not so sure that this is a bizarre line of thought. As for any scientific evidence of what I've posted here, that's why I posted it here, to see if there is support for this idea scientifically.


The belief that the only reasonable strategy for increasing our population is to have more children, rather than increasing our investment and quality of care for a smaller number of children is false.

I'm no scientist or biologist, but it seems to me that this statement doesn’t make sense. If we are going to increase our population, then that can only be done by adding more numbers of people. It looks like what you're saying relates to improving the living standards of people, something I agree needs to be done. I've written on this idea in length in the past, and that is part of why I've asked these questions, and brought up this thread here.

Believe it or not, there is absolutely no basis (other than uninformed bias) for the idea that homosexuals have fewer children than heterosexuals. A significant number of heterosexuals do not have children in their lifetime, either by choice or inability. A significant number of homosexuals do have children. Most humans do a pretty good job of keeping the concepts of procreation and recreation separate.

This is something that I hope to get some facts and figures on, which is why I posted this here. As for your last sentence above, the growing population problem worldwide would seem to argue against that idea.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MadMordigan:
DP: Not the only one, but one of the natural ones.

If it isn't the ONLY one, then it can't really be necessary, can it?

In addition, why would our solution to this problem have to be 'natural'?

MadM, For humanity to survive in the long run, and I'm talking about millions of years here, we need to take advantage of everything that could help us in that endeavor. I'm speculating on one of those things that could be helpful here. We are the only species that can make a rational decision to limit our population, at least the only one I'm aware of. Population control doesn’t have to be natural MM, but why ignore one form that is, because it is wound up in morality? I'm trying to stay away from that aspect of that question here, and just look at the positive biological aspects that may come into play for humanity as far as homosexuality is concerned. Also I hope we can use some of the buzzwords here; homosexuality, heterosexuality, gay, straight, etc, in a neutral light, and not attach any meanings to them outside of how they relate to our species. This thread isn't about morality, it's about long term survival of the human species, and how being gay may fit into that picture.


David

pz

[quote]Originally posted by David M. Payne:
<strong>Interesting replies guys.

Who will have greater net reproductive success: A) the person who has 15 children, or B) the person who has 3?

The answer is that you don't know. There are more variables here than just the raw number of births.

People are K selected. Our usual strategy is to have a relatively small number of children and raise them well. We are not flies or mice, r-strategist, who breed like mad with the understanding that the vast majority will not make it.

Nataraja

A phenomenon of this sort has been observed in mice. In certain situations, homosexuality within a culture tends to rise, even dramatically.

This just doesn't work with humans, though.

zwi

Is homosexuality an evolutionary necessity for humanity?

People posting seem to have a belief that evolution and natural selection have something to do with the good of the species

This cannot be so, else no new species would ever come into being

Homosexual behavior has been observed in many mammalian species

Not everything has an evolutionary reason to be

Zwi

ocean

No, I don't think it is a necessary genetic trait, but it most likely is a genetic trait. Some homos--uals do have children, and some heteros--uals don't.

Jayhawker Soule

It seems to me that this is precisely right, and that evolution functions more as a sieve than a ladder. It is not that evolution 'decides' that homosexuality is a good strategy but, rather, that homosexuality, whatever its origins, is not sufficiently problematic so as to result in its elimination.

Is there any study that correlates homosexuality with population pressures?

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I vaguely recall reading some papar or other that does suggest that homosexuality may evolve as a kind of 'response', something to do with the benefits of non-breeding males. Does anyone else remember this?

Don't hold me to this theory, though, I am just trying to remember where I read about it.

If true, then it would not be anything like teleology, but more like the evolution of drone male insects.

David M. Payne

(1) I agree. But one thing the raw numbers of births and resulting lives will do is have an impact on our survival as a species. They will all need the basics, and those basics are becoming harder and harder to get, as we drain our resources trying to feed, clothe etc an ever increasing population.

(2)Some people's strategy is to have few children and raise them well pz, but that isn't the case with many religions. They want to have many children, and in that case they do look like your flies and mice analogy. I'll have more on this point in a couple of days.

Good point Buffman and I don't mean to imply that there is any kind of master plan, it's more along the lines of would it make biological sense given our overpopulation problems to find that homosexuality is part of our genetic makeup as far as population control is concerned. I don't know the answer, or even know if there is an answer to this question.

Good questions Filo, I hope we get some answers to them here.

I'm not sure about what you have said here Zwi, as it isn't clear to me that evolution doesn’t work to improve the species, but I am not conversant in all the disciplines needed to cover this question. That's why I posted this here. It is perhaps worth noting that we are the only species that has, or shortly will have, developed the ability to in effect control our own evolution through genetic engineering. What becomes of human evolution when it isn't part of the natural process, but is part of a designed process? Out side of the obvious that is, that we will have become our own Gods.

(1)We've had your sieve and ladder analogy before over on the Clemson Skeptics thread RD. You bring up good points, I don't think there is any decision making process at the DNA level, what is, is. But what happens when we control the DNA process of evolution, as we will shortly?
(2)Another good question RD, and I hope someone here might have some data on this.

David

pescifish

No.

I think the premise presupposes that homosexuality must necessarily increase as overpopulation increases. You better find yourself some hard facts backing that up, taking into consideration lack of record keeping, information resources, possible misreporting for prehistoric times when presumably overpopulation did not exist.

Before you can advance your theory, I believe you must give evidence that homosexuality increases as overpopulation does. How can you possibly do that?

And you will have to come up with an acceptable definition and means of scientifically measuring "overpopulation" as well.

------------

But to give a flip answer to a premise that is full of questionable presupposition, I do think it's possible that women are gaining even more control over the reproductive selection process: so many heterosexual men are spilling their seed and sexual energy being obsessed with lesbian sex.

Also, homosexual women have very little problem reproducing or have you decided that all homosexual women must also be infertile?

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: pescifish ]</p>