home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!saundrsg
- Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:11:28 EST
- From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- Message-ID: <93022.211129SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- Newsgroups: soc.singles
- Subject: Re: Credibility...
- References: <phantasm.727040631@vincent1.iastate.edu>
- <ewright.727042916@convex.convex.com> <5992@maserati.qsp.UUCP>
- <ewright.727573793@convex.convex.com> <93020.213759SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- <ewright.727735009@convex.convex.com>
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <ewright.727735009@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.
- Wright) says:
- >In <93020.213759SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon)
- >writes:
- >>Ed, whoa - why is being single a pathological condition?
- >
- >Being single is not a pathological condition. *Enjoying*
- >being single would be. Evolution would have eliminating
- >any such trait from the species long ago.
-
- My understanding of current evolutionary theory is that this is not
- neccesarily the case; for one thing, strongly gay people (by this
- argument) out to have been bred out a _long_ time ago.
-
- The things trying to reproduce are not individuals, they're _genes_ -
- so if people who prefer to remain single are a net benefit to the
- reproductive success of those with whom they are closely related,
- there would be an evolutionary benefit (from the POV of the genes)
- to some proportion of the population remaining single.
-
- This leaves out the entire body of argument about cultural evolution
- (Lamarkian, rather than Darwinian) and questions about how much value
- various present sub-cultures place on reproduction, too.
-
- Graydon
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- saundrsg@ "Praise then Darkness and Creation unfinished"
- qucdn.queensu.ca - U. K. LeGuin
-