"I do not think that the mere persistence of a trait argues for its adaptiveness"
I do. Traits which are not adaptive are stamped out. "Adaptive" does not assume any positive or negative value to humans from the subjective POV. Homosexuality has survived in spite of concerted efforts by some cultures to destroy it. Sush a persistence argues for an underlying adaptability.
Now take our rudimentary tails. Babies are seldom born with true tails anymore because tails obviously became a feature that interfered with human evolutionary survival. Homosexuality, however, has existed as long as tails, and has exhibited a persistence which has remained, so far as we know, constant.
Although I appreciate that we are obliged to judge for ourselves the value to US of certain genetic drivers (the sex drive, for instance), the drive itself trumps the relativity of our understanding and competence to analyze. Even though we are capable of reproduction by by-passing the sexual drive (which after all is truly associated with so much violence and misery in the world) will we do it? Will evolutionary adaptation guide us toward by-passing this drive and getting beyond AIDS, STD's, sexual violence, etc.? I rather doubt it. It depends on how cerebral we become over the next million years or so, if we survive that long.
We don't argue that heterosexuality is maladaptive merely because it has the appearance of causing much harm that is unnecessary. Nor do we argue that because it has a proportionally higher ratio it is thus more adaptive. Adaptation does not speak simply to prevalence but to persistence. The rule/exception dichotomy is not any kind of a basis for determining genetic value (although when used with craft the words may impart or suggest a moral connotation or flavour to the reader).
However, the fact remains that certain skin colours are "exceptions"-not rules....and one could example at least a million other cases. What one must not do (and both of us must try very hard not to do this as I know it is not your intention--and if it were you would correct my assumption) is to attach a moral quality to the concept of "exception" or to consider natural "superiority" in terms of a mumbers game. Being left-handed is not immoral and it is not inferior and it is not mal-adaptive. Nor is it moral or superior. It is simply adaptive.
It is likely that the evolutionary rationale for such diversity is to allow the race as a whole to adapt to a broad variety of environmental possibilities and stressors--especially those which are unexpected and random--and therefore there is perhaps a randomized diversity which protects humanity from extinction. The natural immunity phenomenon is an example of this. Such people are "exceptions" but we need their capricousness.
Nowadays we rely less on our nose than on our brain, so particular traits certainly are dying out. Homosexuality exhibits a persistence, however, which cannot be discounted. Understood in a right perspective there is no cause for any dubiety concerning the moral neutrality of homosexuality or the assumed evolutionary value. |
