Priapus

Well that was a great post LWF, and you definately brought out a few angles that I hadn't thought of before, and I think by reading this last post I've realized some of my own mistakes in the way I'm defending my stance. All that aside though, I'm going to try and make this short as I have a tummy full of Absinthe and a pack of man animals on hand who want to, and I quote, "rassle me" (roommates who think the're in a frat house ).

I agree that there is a miscommunication, but I must say I respect your frankness and honesty. If only other posters here were as intellectually honest with themselves.

Nothing. This is point #1 I don't think I expressed very well. As a collective you're pretty much correct nothing is really objectively more valuable in impregnating or being impregnated. However, as individuals who are in competition with each other it makes all the difference. Look at it this way; two men and two women are married but man #1 got both the wives pregnant leaving man #2 as a cuckold. The same can never be true for the other sex, women can't "knock up" both men and therefore they have to be much more careful they get "the good one" - whatever that would mean to them (and yes it probably would be who would be the most dependable supplier/best hunter etc.).

I think it all comes down to your world view ultimately. Do you by in to a deterministic viewpoint? If so, then isn't passing on your genes the most important thing? If not then we have a whole other conversation (and maybe its my fault again for assuming that people do share that worldview). It seems to me that using your reasoning (and correct me if I'm wrong) you would assume that ferns should allow other ferns some of their sunlight and not crowd each other out, since that would be deemed bad as a whole for the species. However, if ferns did actively crowd other ferns out they would be the ones that survived (I'm looking at house plants right now by the way ). In other words, I believe individual life to be self-deterministic, and humans all the more so since we play a much more complex game of self-awareness. Using this footing I deemed your reasoning, that evolution would select against males always pushing for a population increase, to be a fallacy. I think the only males who could pass on their genes were the ones who crowded out other males. I would also say that we see so many males with secondary characteristics to either fight off each other or to attract females better than the next one because of this very reason. I think this is pretty much why Darwin discussed female choice in OotS, and why it has become an accepted part of evolutionary theory in general.

Yeah you nailed me with this one (well you flattered me into a corner calling me "intellectually honest", now I feel like I have to live up to it ). The problem with my arguement is that I appealed to humanistic values which are definately not absolute. Just to finish this out though I would still say the Pres. should be valued over infantry because his decisions effect many more people.

Well tuck in little LWF and I'll tell you a tale....The thing is most male horses don't ever get to be stud quality. It goes back to what I was saying before about the economics of reproduction. Of course the rancher values a stud more because he can impregnate an entire herd of mares but the mare can only have one colt. However you again are taking an outside position to assess value. What do the mares think of the stud vs. what does the stud think of the mares? If there were just as many studs as there were mares, what happens? The studs start fighting it out because they want to breed as many of the mares as they can. The mares are content to sit back, chew their cud, and wait until the studs are done so they will get the best sire. The other males who lose out are once again seen to be superfluous. So when ranchers decide what horses are studding material they are playing the part of female selection and eternally killing all the uneeded males but the mares are in no such danger.

It'd be rough! Still not quite as rough as having a leaderless society, but I think I'm straying off topic.

My position is that patriarchy does the most good for the most people where it is enacted and kept in place effectively. I don't want to be a rapist, I really don't, but time and time again I am shown that the role of oppressor is the most successful position.

Disagree. It seems to me that it is deeply seated in us to have as many partners as we can and I think birth control methods have helped us out much more in this regard than any sexual rule book ever will.

No, women are always more biologically valuable, remember thats my whole argument in this thread. My point again was to show how so many men are totally unecessary and that is why we compete with each other in a much more heated manner. (or at least we would if it wasn't for the insight to form religious brotherhood).

Ok, heres where I totally disagree with you (and the Absinthe is kicking in so I might not make sense in that disagreement ) I think the idea that logic somehow elevates us above our instincts to be particularly disturbing and I often see it expressed in various sentiments on these boards. If this is the case then what utilitarian purpose did abstract thought and self-consciousness serve in our more supposed 'animalistic days'? It seems to me that logic is a tool to further our own instinctually based agenda as an individual just like an owl, a mouse, or my new favorite animal: the snake-head fish (that bad beeotch is gonna wipe out our native fish population in no time) does.

I don't understand how the constant receptivity to mating is a crutch at all. Couldn't it be a motivating factor to work, invent, or otherwise contribute to a society as well? You also mentioned how the expanding group must encroach on another population, well how is that a bad thing, I mean, for the encroachers? They will have the numbers to encroach so let the encroaching begin...okay I think I better end this here but I will add:

Oh Richard Dawkins is always a great read I honestly prefer him to anything Hawking has ever written (though I know totally different subjects) as he just doesn't seem to try and dumb things down as much as Hawking does. Its a bit off subject, though not entirely, but I really liked Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" and I'm sure a lot of the people who hang out at infidels have read that one.

Nice talking to you again,
Mr. Big Phallus Priapus

long winded fool

I do believe that determinism is the way the universe works. It is true that evolution does favor the fittest. The strongest males tend to breed with the most fertile females. There comes a point, however, when the species becomes too large to continue to thrive in a given environment. This is why predation is beneficial. Humans have their own self-constructed predators in the form of wars and greed, however these predators are not, (or at least have not been,) enough to curb the growth of the population. I believe that the current estimate of the population growth rate is that the population of the world will be double what it is today in less than 12 years. Traditional wars will not curb this. Nuclear wars may, but at a terrible cost to the species. Though predation is good for the predators and the environment, it is not good for the prey. Death is always detrimental to a species. If ignoring instinct can avoid death and following instinct will lead to death, then ignoring instinct would actually be preferable to using it. Instinct is ultimately detrimental to an overpopulated species. Even more so with no predators. Though they become masters of their environment for a short time, they die when their environment dies. This has been documented many times in areas where a species overpopulates and destroys the environment. Even in higher animals. National parks have been wiped out by protected deer constantly fighting over the chance to mate. After the food is gone the deer, male and female, die or move on to another food source. Without sufficient predators, a quickly reproducing species cannot survive. Humans do not have sufficient predators, therefore being a rapidly multiplying species has become detrimental. If we don't use our self-awareness to realize this, we will be naturally selected for extinction. We think of unconscious instinct as the sole foundation for natural selection, however, self-awareness and the ability to rationally choose to ignore our instincts and thereby increase our survival capabilities had to come from somewhere. Unless it came from God, it must have come from evolution by natural selection. Therefore, instincts of self-preservation and preservation of the species are not the only tools for evolution. If sentience is the next step in evolution (and by the nature of evolution there's no way to truly know,) it must be embraced above instincts. If sentience allows us to survive while instinct dooms us to death, then the value of reason above instinct is clear. I don't know that our instincts will doom us for sure. But it seems a good bet with the way the species has been multiplying and the way the earth is slowly becoming less hospitable with pollution and the thinning of the protective ozone. Reason and equality between the sexes (which results in less reproduction and therefore slower population expansion) seems like a good chance to ultimately preserve the species. Polygamy and competition to reproduce are valuable ways to satisfy instinct, but they have become inferior ways to preserve the species in the case of human beings. If the goal is to ensure the survival of the species, instinct must be controlled and the sexes must be equal. If the goal is to get as many chances to reproduce as possible, then women are more valuable than men and reason need not come into play unless it is to get the drop on your male competitors.

My position is that patriarchy does the most good for the most people where it is enacted and kept in place effectively. I don't want to be a rapist, I really don't, but time and time again I am shown that the role of oppressor is the most successful position.

The role of oppressor is only successful for the shortsighted. Patriarchy is ultimately detrimental as is matriarchy, though admittedly to different degrees. I like OBKB's quote about progressing into infinity. It is quite possible for the reasoning human species (or whatever we wind up evolving into) to one day become the oldest species ever to have lived on the planet earth, and survive until all the way up to the earth's natural death. (And beyond if there are other habitable planets that are reachable with the technology of the day.) Humans are theoretically capable of maintaining a healthy population and a healthy environment without the use of instincts or predators indefinitely. If we rely on the things that the animals rely on however, we will not survive our infancy and we will take quite a few species with us when we go. If we value the females as the tools for reproduction, we eventually harm the environment and our species with it.

Disagree. It seems to me that it is deeply seated in us to have as many partners as we can and I think birth control methods have helped us out much more in this regard than any sexual rule book ever will.

As many partners as we can used to mean only one. Early humans were lucky to get one healthy family and even luckier if they could keep more than one child alive. As we've developed into a society of cooperating individuals, we develop new ways of giving ourselves more time for reproduction and more time for individual pursuits. Fast-forward to the 21st century, and we have an enormous amount of time to reproduce and the ability to sire as many offspring as we want with little danger that they will die. Do you see how obsolete this originally beneficial instinct has become? The instincts of fear and lust no longer help us. When I celebrate my fears I am called a bigot or a racist. When I celebrate my lusts I am similarly doing my part to doom the species, though most people aren't far-sighted enough to see this and assume that I'm just not shy about my sexuality. I am setting a precedent for the countless offspring that I father showing that their instincts ought to be valued over their sentience. The ability to corral the opposite sex might be cleverness and it might require intelligence, but it is not wisdom and it is not evolution. It is folly.

Ok, heres where I totally disagree with you (and the Absinthe is kicking in so I might not make sense in that disagreement ) I think the idea that logic somehow elevates us above our instincts to be particularly disturbing and I often see it expressed in various sentiments on these boards. If this is the case then what utilitarian purpose did abstract thought and self-consciousness serve in our more supposed 'animalistic days'? It seems to me that logic is a tool to further our own instinctually based agenda as an individual just like an owl, a mouse, or my new favorite animal: the snake-head fish (that bad beeotch is gonna wipe out our native fish population in no time) does.

Now I'll tell you a tale. Abstract thought allowed us to avoid pain more often and pursue pleasure more efficiently. If the object is pleasure and not pain, then inventing wheels gives us a better way to move a rock than dragging it. If we stop here and say that our instincts will do the rest, we are in danger of losing our ability to use this abstract thinking. Making a wheeled sled was a pain in the ass. The cave-boy figured that enduring the discomfort and inconvenience of making such a contraption went against his basic instincts. The cave-man told him, "You think so now, but wait until you have to move a rock." It is true that the purpose of logic and abstract thought is to ensure the survival of the species the same as the claws of the owl. The cave-man ignored his instincts, used his ability to reason, and built his wheeled contraption anyway. And lo! The wagon was invented!

Instincts are meant to be filtered through reason. To do otherwise is to refuse to use your claws. Unused claws will disappear, and an owl without claws is not on the planet very long.

I don't understand how the constant receptivity to mating is a crutch at all. Couldn't it be a motivating factor to work, invent, or otherwise contribute to a society as well? You also mentioned how the expanding group must encroach on another population, well how is that a bad thing, I mean, for the encroachers? They will have the numbers to encroach so let the encroaching begin.

The only problem is that encroaching in on others is no longer an acceptable survival tactic. Did it occur to you that the reason such behavior is frowned upon is because it is counter-productive? War is a feeble predator. Famine, however, is a much more effective one. Starving to death is obviously detrimental to a species, and this is always the outcome of the strong encroaching on the weak. The punishment is delayed, often by hundreds of years, but the encroachers are always worse off. Like any species that reaches the plague status, we will continue to expand and crush the weak until we are boxed in on all sides. Even then, if we still value reproduction and instinct over reason, we will continue to eat and multiply until the once strong weaken and eventually disappear with the food. This is not a fate to be valued by a species capable of contemplating it.

So, in an attempt to sum it all up: Individual self-interest is not evolution. It is devolution. Since decline is bad and growth is good, and since polygamy and individual self-interest are instinctual methods of attaining a large, temporary increase in population but eventually lead to permanent decrease, these are not valuable goals for the already overpopulated human species. Since the perspective of the superior value of women is based on obsolete instinct and self-interest which are detrimental, and rational equality of the sexes leads to less reproduction and less competition which are beneficial, women ought to be valued as equals to men, if the goal is the survival of the species.

OBKB

Long Winded Fool

Long: of relatively great extent in distance or time

Winded: having breath, usu. of a specified kind

Fool: one who has a zealous enthusiasm for some activity

Thank you for mentioning "We are doing our best with what we have to ensure all sentient beings progress into infinity".

Priapus
Thank you for your insights and prompting the discussion.

The original post 'Maternity" on the Atheist Network Message Board prompted a vastly different response.
http://www.thedeepdark.com/atheism/b...&threadid=1895

Dr Rick

From this month's AAAS meeting:

Sex and gender scientists explore a revolution in evolution:

"Darwin may have been wrong about sex. Or at least too narrow minded.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, leading researchers and theorists in the evolution of sexual behavior will gather to present the growing evidence that Darwin's idea of sexual selection requires sweeping revisions...Darwin's theories of natural selection are well established and generally accepted: ''Survival of the fittest'' leads to the evolution of a particular species over time, and species evolve from other species.

But a third theory has piggybacked upon the success of these other two: Darwin's theory of sexual selection. Sexual selection explains the evolution of physical and behavioral traits that increase the odds that an animal will reproduce. These same traits do not necessarily help the animal survive, as do naturally selected traits. The male praying mantis, for example, will sacrifice himself for love - the female begins to eat him even as they copulate. He doesn't survive long after finding his mate, but he does pass on his genes.

Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners.

Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring.

Sexual selection theory helped Darwin explain many traits, especially in males, that otherwise seemed maladaptive. The unwieldy tail on the male peacock, for instance, makes him more vulnerable to predators but more attractive to females.

Many behaviors do not fit sexual selection theory, however.

Says Vasey of his work with Japanese macaques: ''I see females competing for males all the time. I see males ignoring females that are desperate to copulate with them.''

A great deal of empirical evidence exists that refutes Darwinian sexual selection...For instance, anthropologist Sarah Hrdy studied langur monkeys in the 1980s and found that females promiscuously mate with many males...Homosexual behavior is common but unexplained by Darwin. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingoes and male sheep, practice homosexual behavior.Homosexual behavior is common but unexplained by Darwin. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingoes and male sheep, practice homosexual behavior...In female Japanese macaques, homosexual behavior appears to have evolved from female strategies to coerce reticent males to mate with them. Eager females will mount unwilling males and prompt them to mate with them - a strategy that was easily expanded to mounting other females. Despite these evolutionary origins, however, homosexual behavior among Japanese macaques may have no adaptive value.

The whole context for Darwin's theory of sexual selection is dissolving,'' says Roughgarden. ''So, Darwin is incorrect in the particulars, but more importantly, [his theory of sexual selection] is inadequate even as an approach.''

Both Roughgarden and Gowaty think it's time for a revolution, but not everyone agrees.

''This may be better viewed as a refinement of Darwinian theory, rather than a revolution,'' says Warner.

Vasey agrees, however, that something has to give: ''What I'm seeing, in my one species [macaques], is an unbelievable amount of sexual diversity that is very common. I see it every day, and traditional evolutionary theories for sexual behavior are inadequate and impoverished to account for what is going on.''

What conclusions can we draw about gender and sexual diversity in humans from such findings? Both Vasey and Roughgarden caution strongly against extrapolating animal behavior to humans, as evolutionary psychologists have done for decades.

'People often look to animals to decide for themselves what's natural and what's not natural,'' says Vasey. ''I don't think that's necessarily a good thing to do. I mean, animals engage in cannibalism and infanticide. They also don't take care of elderly individuals. Just because animals do something doesn't make it right or wrong.' "

Rick

OBKB

At this time the motion before the board is to take on Frank Tipler’s “Omega Point Theory” in his book ‘The Physics Of Immortality’?

Mr. Tipler predicts that by 2030 we will have the chip technology to represent a working model of the human mind in the ability to do tera-flops (e.g. conscious and subconscious activities/independent parallel processing). Advances in nano-technology suggest that we will have the chip technology by the third quarter of 2003. Will we have the knowledge, wisdom and insight to affect this new technology with an outcome that is most favorable for all existence?