This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I don't think there's such a thing as glory in evolution.
Figure of speech, you know what I mean.
Post by
Atik
You can watch any of discovery channel's documentaries on dinosaur evolution.
There is one I honestly wish I could remember. It was a series of hour-long episodes which were a mix of documentary and a "story" that would follow dinosaur characters.
There was one of them where the narrator talked about how tropical islands led to flawed evolution due to lack of predators. And in another, he talked about how a properly balanced ecosystem works that promotes proper natural selection, then went on to say that the story's location was a flawed enviorment due to over-population of predators.
I honestly can't remember the name of the series now... which is really bugging me...
Post by
Jubilee
I hate that phrase "you know what I mean". If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have said something that you take as a misinterpretation of you =P Could you please explain yourself if you think I misinterpreted you?
Our state at the moment allows for small scale murder and mayhem to be relatively neutral in regards to the survival of the race.
Post by
Skreeran
Skreeran - if a person consciously killed a little piglet to provide more food for the rest of the pen, is that more or less moral than if a person consciously killed a little person? The question is whether the act is right/wrong, not whether the pig can be held morally responsible.Yes, I think it would be wrong for a human to kill a piglet and feed it to the others in the pen. Again, the difference is that a human has the intelligence to base their decisions on morality that is based on a logic (in most cases a desire to prevent harm) rather than intinctual slavery to genetics.
A pig doesn't think about why they are eating their young, they just do it because that's what their instinct tell thems to. A human is capable of reason, though, and so I hold them to a higher moral standard.
The question about whether morality should be based on logic and empathy vs evolutionary instinct isn't really so relevant, because I'm not trying to argue that. Your comment was that the evolutionary argument is self-defeating. I'm saying that it's not (and it isn't, for the same reason as why you can use it to 'justify' the death of a little piglet).Well, I'm still not understanding your point.
I don't understand how saying "Homosexuals do not produce children, so it's morally wrong," is a logical argument when you factor in such things as heterosexual contraception and overpopulation.
Aruging that homosexuality is immoral because natural selection favors those who have many offspring is just trying to use "science" (in quotes because those who make that argument aparently don't understand the science they're aruging from) to justify feeling that instinct already gave them.
Post by
Atik
Here it is!
The first two episodes take the time to discuss flawed enviorments. I highly recommend the series BTW.
Post by
Orranis
Walking with the Dinosaurs? I watched that one as a child. Too bad it turns out that in a modern light it was riddled with what we know have discovered to be inaccuracies. I will always in my heart remember Raptors as featherless crazy @#$%ing monster demon lizards.
Having no predators can be just as much a flaw as having too many. Imagine if you would, a theoretical situation in which there was only grass, deer, and wolves. If you removed the grass, the deer would starve and die, and the wolves would starve and die. If you removed the deer, the wolves would starve and die. If you removed the wolves, the deer would eat all the grass and starve.
What you're describing
is
natural selection. In this case, instead of a species evolving because some traits work better than others in the environment, the species dies out because its traits were not sustainable in its environment. There is no such thing as 'flawed evolution.' Even artificial selection could be considered evolution if you look at as a certain paradigm.
Post by
Atik
No. Dinosaur Planet.
Post by
Orranis
My statement applies. That part was Off-Topic.
Post by
Atik
I mentioned the fact an enviorment without predators was flawed. That was my entire point to why post-sapience evolution in humans has been flawed.
There are ideal ecosystems and there are flawed ones. Flawed is as you described, something is removed and thus has a detrimental effect.
Notice that humans, as the deer, are eating all the "grass" because of our lack of predators.
This flawed enviorment has led to a cancelation of natural selection due to our flawed, and finite, enviorment, allowing flawed mutations to flourish.
Post by
Skreeran
But natural selection hasn't been cancelled out, just slowed down. Until we take over our own genetic future with technology, evolution will always affect us in one way or another.
Post by
Squishalot
I hate that phrase "you know what I mean". If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have said something that you take as a misinterpretation of you =P Could you please explain yourself if you think I misinterpreted you?
Our state at the moment allows for small scale murder and mayhem to be relatively neutral in regards to the survival of the race.
The issue you raised was a side point at best, and not addressing the core statement that I'd made. Therefore, I can only assume that you're taking a stab at the language used, and not the point I made.
Small scale murder and mayhem is not neutral in regards to the survival of the race. If everybody commits small scale murder, we're screwed. The concept of 'individual decisions don't count' shouldn't be applied, especially considering the fact that our individual decisions, as it turns out, are only constrained by the artificial thought-structures of authority that have been put in place in our environment.
Our thought-evolution (i.e. invention) should be kept separate from our physical evolution (instinct and biological desire).
I don't understand how saying "Homosexuals do not produce children, so it's morally wrong," is a logical argument when you factor in such things as heterosexual contraception and overpopulation.
You're forgetting that the people who do argue that are also likely to be the people saying that heterosexual contraception is also bad. Just saying.
Aruging that homosexuality is immoral because natural selection favors those who have many offspring is just trying to use "science" (in quotes because those who make that argument aparently don't understand the science they're aruging from) to justify feeling that instinct already gave them.
Well, here's a question. Why do people have that instinct in the first place?
I believe that the instinct is born from the natural prejudices that we have against people who aren't similar to ourselves. Survival of my herd is more important than survival of someone else's herd - I'm going to protect and promote my people above others, basically. It's exactly the same argument to justify racism, or in fact <any>ism - that as individuals, we're simply designed to work better and closer with people of a similar background (biologically, genetically, environmentally) than people of different backgrounds.
It may not be sufficient justification to tolerate segregation or discrimination, but it's a valid argument.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Because of evolution, over thousands of years, the grass will fight off the deer.Wat.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, because it's being attacked it needs a defense mechanism doesn't it? Everything seems to have one.Yeah, but what are you saying? I can't tell if you're arguing that evolution isn't true, or that we're misunderstanding it.
Plants
may
not
be
able
to
get
up
and
beat
up
their
predators,
but
they
still
have
defenses
.
Also, regarding the bombardier beetle, please read
this
.
Post by
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
Small scale murder and mayhem is not neutral in regards to the survival of the race. If everybody commits small scale murder, we're screwed.
If everyone commits murder it's not small scale =/ That's like an oxymoron.
I've completely lost your train of argument at this point. Would you agree with what I said "
as long as our sapience as a whole is helping us survive
the individual decisions are much more arbitrary "? As long as the netgain our species gets from sapience is in the green, it is a beneficial trait.
I will never accept that homosexuality is a biological flaw. It's just another way that humanity has come to express itself. We are not destroying humanity.
Post by
Orranis
I mentioned the fact an enviorment without predators was flawed. That was my entire point to why post-sapience evolution in humans has been flawed.
There are ideal ecosystems and there are flawed ones. Flawed is as you described, something is removed and thus has a detrimental effect.
Notice that humans, as the deer, are eating all the "grass" because of our lack of predators.
This flawed enviorment has led to a cancelation of natural selection due to our flawed, and finite, enviorment, allowing flawed mutations to flourish.
If we eat all our "grass" that means we go extinct through natural selection. Homosexuality isn't the problem there, it's the fact that not enough of us get eaten or die. That is an evolutionary flaw within itself, not a lack of natural selection. Sure, we might not evolve any further than we have already, but only because it's too difficult for nature to kill us, which can turn out to be an evolutionary flaw itself. We removed all our wolves.
Post by
Pwntiff
Small scale murder and mayhem is not neutral in regards to the survival of the race. If everybody commits small scale murder, we're screwed.
If everyone commits murder it's not small scale =/ That's like an oxymoron.
I've completely lost your train of argument at this point. Would you agree with what I said "
as long as our sapience as a whole is helping us survive
the individual decisions are much more arbitrary "? As long as the netgain our species gets from sapience is in the green, it is a beneficial trait.
Also, given the severe over-population of the planet, any couples that are actively trying not to have a child are helping.
Post by
Atik
I mentioned the fact an enviorment without predators was flawed. That was my entire point to why post-sapience evolution in humans has been flawed.
There are ideal ecosystems and there are flawed ones. Flawed is as you described, something is removed and thus has a detrimental effect.
Notice that humans, as the deer, are eating all the "grass" because of our lack of predators.
This flawed enviorment has led to a cancelation of natural selection due to our flawed, and finite, enviorment, allowing flawed mutations to flourish.
If we eat all our "grass" that means we go extinct through natural selection. Homosexuality isn't the problem there, it's the fact that not enough of us get eaten or die. That is an evolutionary flaw within itself, not a lack of natural selection. Sure, we might not evolve any further than we have already, but only because it's too difficult for nature to kill us, which can turn out to be an evolutionary flaw itself. We removed all our wolves.
You honestly just agreed with me by pointing out the fact of evolutionary flaws. I said that homosexuality wasn't a direct result of evolution, making it an evolutionary flaw. (Still no problem with it.)
And Light: There sure as sh*t can be a perfect enviorment. Orranis SAID the perfect enviorment if each level only had one species: Grass, Deer, and Wolves (and air...). The deer eat the grass, the wolves eat the deer, and the woves fertalize the grass when they die. A perfect cycle of an enviorment promoting proper evolution.
As I said, your beetle is the result of a flawed enviorment that promoted flawed evolutionary traits to flourish.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.