Men of boards, what innocent behaviors have you changed out of fear?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

What's the evolutionary theory behind this?

There are various theories flying around;

1. Adding non-reproducing adults to a community means more hunters & gatherers, therefore more food and protection for the children of that community. Therefore communities/families which are "prone" to producing a small number of homosexual offspring are more successful than those that aren't.

2. Studies indicate that female relations of male homosexuals tend to be objectively more attractive to men and produce more children. So there's a potential gene or set of genes which increases fertility in females while at the same time "creating" homosexual males.

3. The latest theory suggests that it may serve a bonding purpose. In the same way that some species of ape will have sex with other members of their group of any gender as form of communication and bonding, homosexuality may serve the same purpose in humans but in a much more nuanced way.

Ultimately all of the research suggests that homosexuality is not an error or an evolutionary mistake, but rather a trait which has persisted since before homo sapiens even existed, and therefore in evolutionary terms must not be detrimental to the species or the individual. Evolution is way more nuanced than pop-science tends to portray. It's very rare that a trait serves a single evolutionary purpose or can be declared an "error".

Even the existence of genetic errors like Down's Syndrome are theorised now to potentially serve a communal purpose of increasing bonding, co-operation and empathy in the individuals around the disabled person.

My own idea for the reason the vast majority of societies in history hating homosexuals was because of the fact gay sex leads to far higher rates of disease than heterosexual sex.

You see, you're starting from the wrong beginning. The vast majority of societies in history have not hated homosexuals.

greencap wrote: »

Making sperm with your bodys energy and then having the instinct to put that sperm where it serves no purpose is a self defeating process.

Natures full of all sorts of inefficient workarounds. It's part of the reason your body makes billions of sperm instead of just one or two hundred, it's not like it's expected to be spared and used responsibly. The body produces a lot of it and makes males horney, there's nothing more it can do. There's no intention in evolution, it's just the way things ended up.

Homosexuality is a trait that survives even a lack of reproduction. If it's a gene it's passed on by other members of the species which would sort of highlight it being a pretty important gene, if it's a behaviour it's been with us since long before we were human, if it's a culture it's one that humans throughout history from all over the planet can relate too. You say it's a dead end but nature by it's actions seems to disagree, if it had no value it more than likely wouldn't be so widespread.

Your stuck on one notion, that homosexuality doesn't lead to that person reproducing based on attraction, but homosexuality doesn't prevent those people from reproducing, they can and do reproduce. When they do reproduce it's likely to be later in life and not as the result of hormones.

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It was until people decided it was much better craic to skip the 'result' part.

Stone them!

greencap wrote: »

Cancers not an error either. In the strictest terms. I mean evolution doesn't have a known 'purpose' its just a series of events. For there to be an error there must have been an intention.

But in everyday language, yep, we'd probably say error.

re; 1. Adding cancer to a community means more carers employed and the development of research facilities, and the support economy which goes along with this.

re; 3. Cancer may serve a bonding purpose, bringing family and community members closer together and nourishing a sense of perspective and forgiveness. Strengthening a community's co-operation.

Making sperm with your bodys energy and then having the instinct to put that sperm where it serves no purpose is a self defeating process.

Thats like using energy and effort to carefully prepare a meal and then having the great idea to throw that meal out for the craic, cause it feels good.

Homosexuality as a process is basically a newtons cradle.
(Ball references not intended)
Its just tick-tock, no result. Arousal-sex-arousal-sex-arousal-sex, no result.

Heterosexuality is arousal-sex-result, and is exponential.

No judgement on either, but you can see how one can be described as erroneous in everyday speech which assumes a 'purpose' or 'intention' when it comes to evolution.

We consider cancer undesirable because it causes us to suffer and die, not because it is an 'error'. It is absolutely not an error. Again, it arises out of the same crucial process that led to us existing in the first place.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

We consider cancer undesirable because it causes us to suffer and die, not because it is an 'error'. It is absolutely not an error. Again, it arises out of the same crucial process that led to us existing in the first place.

Who said anything about undesirable.

ScumLord wrote: »

Natures full of all sorts of inefficient workarounds. It's part of the reason your body makes billions of sperm instead of just one or two hundred, it's not like it's expected to be spared and used responsibly. The body produces a lot of it and makes males horney, there's nothing more it can do. There's no intention in evolution, it's just the way things ended up.

Homosexuality is a trait that survives even a lack of reproduction. If it's a gene it's passed on by other members of the species which would sort of highlight it being a pretty important gene, if it's a behaviour it's been with us since long before we were human, if it's a culture it's one that humans throughout history from all over the planet can relate too. You say it's a dead end but nature by it's actions seems to disagree, if it had no value it more than likely wouldn't be so widespread.

Your stuck on one notion, that homosexuality doesn't lead to that person reproducing based on attraction, but homosexuality doesn't prevent those people from reproducing, they can and do reproduce. When they do reproduce it's likely to be later in life and not as the result of hormones.

You say several true things but then make a weak allusion that somehow these things prove your point.

Like 'the sky is blue' 'water is wet' ergo you owe me €20 because the world is spherical.

If theres one thing I'm stuck on its that the organs of a gay person are working/functioning to a different agenda to the brain/mind.

Theres a bifurcation. The process of development was going in one direction, but then changed.

This change is not advantageous in evolutionary terms.

greencap wrote: »

Guess you're on your own then.

"Cancer is an error"

"No it's not"

"Who said anything about not?"

Solid discussion. We should do this again some time.

Murrisk wrote: »

Apparently most of the time, cancer IS an error rather than being down a gene or environment, a DNA replication error, which makes sense as cancer incidence increases with age and it makes sense as the body become more error-prone as it ages.

https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/03/23/cancer-mutations-caused-by-random-dna-mistakes/

This completely misses the point I was making. If you look at DNA replication from the point of view as a process that was intentionally developed to perform a particular function, then yes cancer arises out of a 'copying error'. However, DNA was not developed by an intelligent agent with an end goal. It arose and evolved on its own, and these 'errors' are what drove that evolution. So in that sense it's not a mistake at all.

The cell mutation that leads to cancer is the same process that led to human life existing at all.

You and the authors of the linked article are starting from a position of "DNA is supposed to work this way" which is correct in the context of a human life and attempting to fight cancer, but not in a broader evolutionary context.

I don't offer my seat to anyone on public transport, I've been chewed out too many times by old women.
If anyone asks I'll happily stand but I'm done with getting a dressing down in public for trying to be nice.