This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
No, you can't say that.
Read the definition i gave. Natural is the thing that was SUPPOSED to happen.
And, don't start the bs, homosexuality is obviously not the intended path.
What do you mean by supposed to happen?
Homosexuality could be humanities self correction attribute. For all we know, homosexuality might have more 'supposed to happen' then heterosexuality at this point.
Didn't we presuppose in another thread that homosexuality might have been nature's correction plan to prevent over-population of a species? That would possibly justify why it's seen in other animals as well as humans.
Post by
Orranis
No, you can't say that.
Read the definition i gave. Natural is the thing that was SUPPOSED to happen.
And, don't start the bs, homosexuality is obviously not the intended path.
What do you mean by supposed to happen?
Homosexuality could be humanities self correction attribute. For all we know, homosexuality might have more 'supposed to happen' then heterosexuality at this point.
Didn't we presuppose in another thread that homosexuality might have been nature's correction plan to prevent over-population of a species? That would possibly justify why it's seen in other animals as well as humans.
Yeah, and that's my point. The universe doesn't have a 'supposed to happen.' Only what actually does happen.
Post by
Skreeran
No, you can't say that.
Read the definition i gave. Natural is the thing that was SUPPOSED to happen.
And, don't start the bs, homosexuality is obviously not the intended path.
What do you mean by supposed to happen?
Homosexuality could be humanities self correction attribute. For all we know, homosexuality might have more 'supposed to happen' then heterosexuality at this point.
Didn't we presuppose in another thread that homosexuality might have been nature's correction plan to prevent over-population of a species? That would possibly justify why it's seen in other animals as well as humans.
Yeah, and that's my point. The universe doesn't have a 'supposed to happen.' Only what actually does happen.Precisely. What we consciously choose to do, or not to do, is artificial. What we are genetically compelled to do is natural.
Natural does NOT mean "normal."
Masturbation is normal. The majority of humans do it. It is not natural.
Homosexuality is not normal. The majority of humans are not homosexuals. But, since it comes from our natural genes, and occurs in nature, it is natural.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Didn't we presuppose in another thread that homosexuality might have been nature's correction plan to prevent over-population of a species? That would possibly justify why it's seen in other animals as well as humans.
That doesn't really make sense, or work. How does nature "know" we're overpopulated? Evolution doesn't work on a prevention level, it works on an adaption level. Nor does it fit a survival of the fittest model.
Yeah, and that's my point. The universe doesn't have a 'supposed to happen.' Only what actually does happen.
An animal is supposed to reproduce.
By nature.
If it's not, it is no longer following its nature as an animal. That's unnatural.
Masturbation is normal. The majority of humans do it. It is not natural.
Homosexuality is not normal. The majority of humans are not homosexuals. But, since it comes from our natural genes, and occurs in nature, it is natural.
Your model is pretty self-contradictory.
Our minds exist in nature. Therefore our choice to masturbate (or do anything) is nature.
You can't pick and choose what takes place in nature.
Post by
Orranis
Didn't we presuppose in another thread that homosexuality might have been nature's correction plan to prevent over-population of a species? That would possibly justify why it's seen in other animals as well as humans.
That doesn't really make sense, or work. How does nature "know" we're overpopulated? Evolution doesn't work on a prevention level, it works on an adaption level. Nor does it fit a survival of the fittest model.
It doesn't, that's why it's self correcting. It's like a mathematical equation, of a sorts. If Y=10X-X2, then without consciously knowing what the number is, Y will rise and then eventually decline while X is always rising. Survival of the fittest is not always true in nature. Let's say a pack of super-wolves works it's way into a forest of deer. The super wolves, with plenty to eat and no problems with prey, will have an immense survival and breeding rate. So, soon they have a huge population. However, a huge population must be fed. With all the deer being eaten, they are killed before they can reproduce at a rate matching the wolves. So soon their are incredibly few deer, and many wolves. However, with no food, the wolves soon starve themselves until they are fewer than the deer. With all the deer gone for a great length of time, the grasses they eat are now booming in quantity. So with few wolves to hunt them and lots of grass to eat, the deer population increases rapidly. However, now that the wolves have many deer to hunt, they breed rapidly, and the deer's breeding rate declines, and it call starts over again.
So without anything consciously thinking about the process, both species now have a self correction effect to keep their species alive. If one did not survive, neither would the other.
Yeah, and that's my point. The universe doesn't have a 'supposed to happen.' Only what actually does happen.
An animal is supposed to reproduce.
By nature.
If it's not, it is no longer following its nature as an animal. That's unnatural.
As far as we have seen, this is the case. However, humans have essentially destroyed the self correction method listed above, so we can no longer be compared to other animals as such.
Post by
Squishalot
That doesn't really make sense, or work. How does nature "know" we're overpopulated? Evolution doesn't work on a prevention level, it works on an adaption level. Nor does it fit a survival of the fittest model.
I believe it had to do with a predator/prey model. Overpopulation due to food source constraints does fit into the context of evolution. Food was very constrained in the old days prior to institutionalised farming and the industrial revolution - it doesn't need to be recent.
Precisely. What we consciously choose to do, or not to do, is artificial. What we are genetically compelled to do is natural.
I agree with Hyper. Our conscious choices are just as natural as our genetically compelled choices, especially if you subscribe to the belief that our conscious free will is entirely dependent and predictable on our genetic and environmental conditions.
Post by
Heckler
So, without getting too deep in the conversation -- why does it matter if it's natural or not?
That is, let's just say for the sake of discussion for now that it's "not natural" -- what does that matter? What does it change? What does it justify?
Post by
Orranis
That doesn't really make sense, or work. How does nature "know" we're overpopulated? Evolution doesn't work on a prevention level, it works on an adaption level. Nor does it fit a survival of the fittest model.
I believe it had to do with a predator/prey model. Overpopulation due to food source constraints does fit into the context of evolution. Food was very constrained in the old days prior to institutionalised farming and the industrial revolution - it doesn't need to be recent.
Precisely. What we consciously choose to do, or not to do, is artificial. What we are genetically compelled to do is natural.
I agree with Hyper. Our conscious choices are just as natural as our genetically compelled choices, especially if you subscribe to the belief that our conscious free will is entirely dependent and predictable on our genetic and environmental conditions.
My definition for natural vs. artificial for the purpose of artificial existing would be something that is natural is something that would exist with or without our influence, artificial being that as far as we know, without humans, would not exist (thus artificial selection or whatnot.)
Post by
Squishalot
Absolutely nothing. The original question was whether it was a genetic predisposition or not, and that branched off into whether it was natural or not.
Post by
Orranis
Absolutely nothing. The original question was whether it was a genetic predisposition or not, and that branched off into whether it was natural or not.
Well, I don't see anyone here arguing against it being genetic, so we had to make something out of it...
Post by
Heckler
Absolutely nothing. The original question was whether it was a genetic predisposition or not, and that branched off into whether it was natural or not.
But the answer to that question is of zero consequence? Interesting.
Post by
Squishalot
My definition for natural vs. artificial for the purpose of artificial existing would be something that is natural is something that would exist with or without our influence, artificial being that as far as we know, without humans, would not exist (thus artificial selection or whatnot.)
Are humans natural? Because without the previous generations of humans, we wouldn't exist. Logical flaw.
Post by
Squishalot
Absolutely nothing. The original question was whether it was a genetic predisposition or not, and that branched off into whether it was natural or not.
But the answer to that question is of zero consequence? Interesting.
Isn't it of zero consequence? If homosexuality is unnatural, then plenty of other things are unnatural using the same definitions. If that's the case, what makes homosexuality any worse than riding a pushbike?
Post by
Heckler
Isn't it of zero consequence? If homosexuality is unnatural, then plenty of other things are unnatural using the same definitions. If that's the case, what makes homosexuality any worse than riding a pushbike?
That's actually exactly what I was thinking. I'm curious what the "unnatural" camp is trying to accomplish by their arguments (and for that matter, what makes their position worth the effort to rebut).
If all sides involved will admit that it's a zero-consequence argument, then I guess I'll just be content that I haven't been part of it. If someone can identify a consequence, maybe it will make the conversation worth having.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It doesn't, that's why it's self correcting. It's like a mathematical equation, of a sorts. If Y=10X-X2, then without consciously knowing what the number is, Y will rise and then eventually decline while X is always rising. Survival of the fittest is not always true in nature. Let's say a pack of super-wolves works it's way into a forest of deer. The super wolves, with plenty to eat and no problems with prey, will have an immense survival and breeding rate. So, soon they have a huge population. However, a huge population must be fed. With all the deer being eaten, they are killed before they can reproduce at a rate matching the wolves. So soon their are incredibly few deer, and many wolves. However, with no food, the wolves soon starve themselves until they are fewer than the deer. With all the deer gone for a great length of time, the grasses they eat are now booming in quantity. So with few wolves to hunt them and lots of grass to eat, the deer population increases rapidly. However, now that the wolves have many deer to hunt, they breed rapidly, and the deer's breeding rate declines, and it call starts over again.
So without anything consciously thinking about the process, both species now have a self correction effect to keep their species alive. If one did not survive, neither would the other.
Yeah, and that's my point. The universe doesn't have a 'supposed to happen.' Only what actually does happen.
An animal is supposed to reproduce.
By nature.
If it's not, it is no longer following its nature as an animal. That's unnatural.
As far as we have seen, this is the case. However, humans have essentially destroyed the self correction method listed above, so we can no longer be compared to other animals as such.
You're using a very narrow definition of "fittest." Wolves that cannot eat anything other than a dwindling population of deer are not "fit," and as such will die out. Say a branch of wolves developed a means of catching fish. They would be more fit in the current conditions than the other wolves and thus would have greater survival odds. It still follows survival of the fittest. Homosexuality does not.
I believe it had to do with a predator/prey model. Overpopulation due to food source constraints does fit into the context of evolution. Food was very constrained in the old days prior to institutionalised farming and the industrial revolution - it doesn't need to be recent.
But nature can't know homosexuality does that. All things start out as a random mutation. Can homosexuality help thin a population (or at least slow the accelaration)? Yes. But that is a far thing from saying that "it's nature's way of dealing with overpopulation." There is no evidence that a population with gays survives better than a population without.
And yes, why are human's all of a sudden arbitrarily "unnatural"? If you were to posit that, wouldn't that be enough to deny the original premise that what we see in bugs is a sign of what happens in humans? You can't have it both ways.
Post by
146306
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
My definition for natural vs. artificial for the purpose of artificial existing would be something that is natural is something that would exist with or without our influence, artificial being that as far as we know, without humans, would not exist (thus artificial selection or whatnot.)
Are humans natural? Because without the previous generations of humans, we wouldn't exist. Logical flaw.
Humans
are the product of natural selection. Natural selection would work with or without humans existing (unless, of course, I am God ;D). So, in a sense, humans are natural. It's the human's creations that would not exist otherwise, such as plastic, that are artificial.
Post by
Orranis
It doesn't, that's why it's self correcting. It's like a mathematical equation, of a sorts. If Y=10X-X2, then without consciously knowing what the number is, Y will rise and then eventually decline while X is always rising. Survival of the fittest is not always true in nature. Let's say a pack of super-wolves works it's way into a forest of deer. The super wolves, with plenty to eat and no problems with prey, will have an immense survival and breeding rate. So, soon they have a huge population. However, a huge population must be fed. With all the deer being eaten, they are killed before they can reproduce at a rate matching the wolves. So soon their are incredibly few deer, and many wolves. However, with no food, the wolves soon starve themselves until they are fewer than the deer. With all the deer gone for a great length of time, the grasses they eat are now booming in quantity. So with few wolves to hunt them and lots of grass to eat, the deer population increases rapidly. However, now that the wolves have many deer to hunt, they breed rapidly, and the deer's breeding rate declines, and it call starts over again.
So without anything consciously thinking about the process, both species now have a self correction effect to keep their species alive. If one did not survive, neither would the other.
Yeah, and that's my point. The universe doesn't have a 'supposed to happen.' Only what actually does happen.
An animal is supposed to reproduce.
By nature.
If it's not, it is no longer following its nature as an animal. That's unnatural.
As far as we have seen, this is the case. However, humans have essentially destroyed the self correction method listed above, so we can no longer be compared to other animals as such.
You're using a very narrow definition of "fittest." Wolves that cannot eat anything other than a dwindling population of deer are not "fit," and as such will die out. Say a branch of wolves developed a means of catching fish. They would be more fit in the current conditions than the other wolves and thus would have greater survival odds. It still follows survival of the fittest. Homosexuality does not.
That's called an analogy. Of course the wolves don't only eat deer, but just as well the deer don't only get eaten by wolves. I have just simplified the equation, and controlled the 'experiment.' Survival is dependent on the survival of others, so it's more than just survival of the fittest.
I believe it had to do with a predator/prey model. Overpopulation due to food source constraints does fit into the context of evolution. Food was very constrained in the old days prior to institutionalised farming and the industrial revolution - it doesn't need to be recent.
But nature can't know homosexuality does that. All things start out as a random mutation. Can homosexuality help thin a population (or at least slow the accelaration)? Yes. But that is a far thing from saying that "it's nature's way of dealing with overpopulation." There is no evidence that a population with gays survives better than a population without.
Nature doesn't have to know homosexuality does that. Nature doesn't
know
that with less food, an animals population will slow. Nature doesn't know anything, it's not a sentient force. It just will. It's logical. It's not different for gays, in that only under special conditions that humans have achieved, will the homosexual population become significant, which would be self correction. Nature being sentient has nothing to do with it.
Post by
Squishalot
And yes, why are human's all of a sudden arbitrarily "unnatural"?
I didn't say that, unless you're not aiming that at me.
But that is a far thing from saying that "it's nature's way of dealing with overpopulation."
Would you appreciate it if I amended that to "it's
a natural way
of dealing with overpopulation."?
My definition for natural vs. artificial for the purpose of artificial existing would be something that is natural is something that would exist with or without our influence, artificial being that as far as we know, without humans, would not exist (thus artificial selection or whatnot.)
Are humans natural? Because without the previous generations of humans, we wouldn't exist. Logical flaw.
Humans
are the product of natural selection. Natural selection would work with or without humans existing (unless, of course, I am God ;D). So, in a sense, humans are natural. It's the human's creations that would not exist otherwise, such as plastic, that are artificial.
What makes plastic (being a human's creation) any different from a baby (being a human's creation)?
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.