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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (746)	8/10/2006 11:51:51 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1695

I think you'll be wrong on cost, ease and universality, certainly for my lifetime, as well as acceptance of radical embryonic manipulation by fundamentalist Xtians, judging by their present attitudes to any such approach. But your happy assumptions pretty well preclude any further discussion on the main topic. Two worthwhile points. >>Homosexuality has survived at least 3000 years, and probably though not provably is as old as humanity. This argues for some compelling genetic advantages, somewhere, or it would have been bred out. So, it's likely that any society culling these would be weakened, perhaps critically if reproduction is at such a low point that the minor numbers of homosexuals are significant compared to the breeding population... and die out. << I think its very very doubtful that homosexuality serves any "Darwinian" purpose at all. The major argument that it does is that we know Darwinism is the cause of everything that exists so every thing that exists, like homosexuality, must have a Darwinian purpose. I realize that isn't really an argument, but .... * Homosexuality mitigates directly and absolutely against survival - i.e., against breeding. If it had any simple genetic cause it would have very quickly bred out in primitive man. It didn't. Hence it must have no simple cause. Further, any complex genetic cause must be associated with some benefits so great that the risk to reproduction by carrying precursor genes is outweighed (i.e., parents with the precursor gene combinations must reap more benefits in them or from the increased survival/reproduction of other offspring) since otherwise simple Mendelian mechanics would still cause such lines to dwindle and die out over time. [If you don't get this, imagine gambling say 1000 times on odd-even with a 6% house take, for the ~6% gay number. You won't have much stake left.] Or, the genetic causes are multiple and randomised to a degree that they are not predictably transmissible. Or, there is not any reliable genetic cause. But in these two cases the whole argument is moot. *BTW there are lots and lots of things about people that doesn't have any apparent or even plausible "Darwinian" purpose. The propensity to argue about what if scenarios, for example. Huge Darwinian advantages. Leaving aside the obvious link to greater and more creative intelligence, running through what if scenarios and coming up with sensible and achievable plans is a basic way of increasing survival chances from any risky mission. Imagine, for instance, if the Bush cabinet had tried a "what if": "What if not all of our rosy assumptions about Iraq come true", perhaps, or "if we overthrow Saddam what do we do then"? <g>