Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (74897)	9/22/2003 7:00:04 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The difference between a thought experiment and what you are engaged in is that one is based on obvious inference and the other is based on gossamer speculation. In plain reason, and given what we know, a population of pure homosexuals would be a far less secure foundation for the species, at least until the rise of technology. (After that, the objection is how much trouble must be taken to continue the species). All you are offering is a baseless suggestion that the harsh conclusions need not be so. You do not even bother to develop a specious claim. Your point about "relative measure" is wholly beside the point. What other measures could possibly overcome the objection of an insecure future for the species? The best you can come up with is "who cares about the population size?" Well, at most points along the evolutionary line, it has been an advantage to have population growth, or we would not have developed flourishing civilizations, but would have been stuck at a stage of isolated human enclaves. Beyond that, stabilization, at least, is desirable, at whatever point we might consider that most desirable, and even that would be in jeopardy. Do have any way of knowing about the relative advantages of the paths? Well, yes, we have a wealth of data, for example, suggesting that the male influence on offspring is very important, and therefore that having two parents is desirable, if not necessary, especially when male offspring are involved. Given the lack of special bond between mother and child, and the propensity of male homosexuals to crave multiple and adventurous relationships, the civilizing effect of the other way is likely to be compromised. Also, there is a strong correlation generally with family stability and child welfare: those children who are most at risk generally come from homes where there are multiple boyfriends and insecure relationships. Also, although unwanted pregnancy might be cured, things like rape and seduction would not be, as they do not depend upon sexual bipolarity. Indeed, in a situation where a male ethic is dominant, instead of domesticating male proclivities, men might become more dangerous, at least to one another. The is certainly the situation is prison, although, admittedly skewed by an anti-social population. I suppose that we have talked this to death, but I would at least like to get clear my perspective, which is that the thought experiment is imaginative only insofar as it offers a premise to test. Otherwise, it is based on known data and likely inference, not merely guesswork.........