Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #27  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Feb 9th, 2004, 06:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by da blob
Your first assumption is indeed a viable one. Because of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (population genetics). I. e. as deletere as a given recessive might be, it will not disapear from a population, rather, an equilibrium will establish itself over time, with a more or less constant proportion of affected and carriers.
BTW, "deletere" is used in respect to evolution - i.e. if we consider the propagation of his genetic material as an individual's only purpose. Not any kind of "moral" connotation here of course.
So you can see it as a natural error that due to a number of factors survives... In addition to stress removal as you say below I can see how this could be true. Taking into account all the higher mammals that masturbate also... So a combination of misdirected instinct, possibility of natural error, stress removal and also habitualization and human intervention. This works for me, although it's obvious that more information needs to be catalogued. The gulls still don't make sense.

And obviously my interest in the subject isn't due to some moral issue, at least not in a primary way. If it turned out that homosexualism is somehow naturally validated then I suppose it would change my viewpoint on the subject somewhat. But not in a very drastic way because natural behaviour, as it was noted does not equal morally acceptable behaviour to begin with.





Quote:
I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, except that genital pleasure does exist in higher mammals, and not only as a tension reducer mean as in the bonobos' case, but for its own sake. Yet it is still far from what we call "sexuality".
I know I'm taking this a bit far, but why? Why do higher mammals differ in this way from more basic organisms. In the deterministic process that prevades evolution, what purpose in terms of efficiency does sexual pleasure serve? Given modern understanding of evolution, it doesn't seem to do much, actually. It is only if one supposes that sexual pleasure or indeed any other psychosomatic sensory perception plays an intergal role in nature's plan for evolved lifeforms that any of this makes sense!


And don't worry, I'm greek so english isn't my first language either and besides, all the americans aren't paying attention anymore.
__________________
Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.