Jump to content

Gian

Senior Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gian

  1. There is so much reproductive overcapacity in male human sexuality that selection pressure against the mere diversion of any of it would be practically nonexistent by assumption.

     

     

    And we have evidence for that absence, as well: Human females hide their fertility, for example - making most male heterosexual behavior a waste of time from a strict fertilization perspective.

     

    There's obviously plenty to spare.

    well until quite recently there wasn't. With very high mortality rates until the end of the 18th century men and women had to go on attempting to procreate all their lives in order to have 3 or 4 children who survived to maturity

     

    You have presented an incomplete argument and no actual citations to support this position.

     

    gian meanwhile has received two negative ratings for simply continuing to ask questions that, in the absence of presented evidence, seem quite reasonable to him.

     

    While I happen to agree with your position I believe it is incumbent on you, as it is on all of us, to provide evidence when called upon to do so. Your earlier argument, in crank ridden massive font, fails. I hope you will return to character and provide that evidence for gian.

    Thankyou. I'm still working through all the above life-stories, but Im just asking if there's any published research either way to indicate whether HOMOPHOBIA (NOT HOMOSEXUALITY!) is socially constucted or endogenous perhaps due to natural selection. And I don't know why enyone would want to vote me down for just asking. I only want to learn.

     

     

     

     

    Thanks to everyone for the sometimes lengthy life stories above, still working through them. I doubt children are born hating anyone or anything. These certainly are taught by society. Of course children aren't born hating communism!

     

    But surely both humans and other species have endogenous fears and aversions presumably there due to natural selection. If they didn't they wouldn't survive.

     

     

    I do know of one experiment where newborn kittens were found to be afraid of heights and had not been born long enough to have been taught it. May this not account for human homophobia in terms of improving the reproductive capacity of the species?

     

    Please if possible refer me to some published research in replies. I only want to learn.

     

    Giansmile.png

  2. There are no infants or toddlers who hate other groups or classes of people.

    It is taught to them by their parents or surrounding community.

    Show me one human child who hates an entire class of people for no apparent reason without being taught to do so and I will concede the point.

     

     

     

     

    417676_10150632564328713_815333712_89368

    children are not sexually mature, and hopefully have never seen gay sex (or any sex) or even know what it involves. So this feeling of revulsion may occur whether they like it or not after puberty because of a genetic predisposition, and not solely as a cultural construct?

  3. Don't forget the consequences of overpopulation. Humans reproduce less and spend more time nurturing their offspring.

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71586-could-excess-prolificityoffspring-be-maladaptive-nurturance-distribution/

     

     

    Why must he be repelled by it? Can't he just lack any sort of interest in it? I think this argument assumes that a male would like homosexual relations if he were to try them.

     

     

     

    Now the argument is changing. I can imagine how a man would be more likely to reproduce if he were disinclined toward homosexual interactions, for he might actually like it if he tried it, and his decision to continue the behavior might lower his fitness. However, I can't imagine a biological explanation for oppressing the gays. First, his own genes aren't at stake. Second, the presence of nonreproductive individuals doesn't threaten society. It might even prevent overpopulation.

    Well I only ask because some men DO seem to be repelled by the actual idea of say anal sex, even if they are well disposed towards gays -they may know some personally. I just thought natural selection might favour those who are not only heterosexual, but also distinctly turned off by gay sex. Probably a difficult thing to prove either way.

    This does not of course excuse any sort of active homophobia.

     

    Homophobia is something learned and/or taught. It is not something we are born with. This speaks against your core suggestion.

    evidence??

     

    Homosexuality occurs in many other animals and they show no signs of homophobia...

    But the difference is that we are more 'aware' than the rest of the animal kingdom, so natural selection may favour those who are not only heterosexual but have a genetic aversion to gay sex.

    Doesn't mean that homophobia is acceptable of course.

  4. Is homophobia a consequence of natural selection? viz heterosexual men are evolutionarily required to be attracted to the opposite sex because if they weren't they wouldnt reproduce and so the species wouldn't survive.

     

    At the same time the heterosexual male animal needs biologically to be reasonably repelled by homosexual sex, because if he weren't he wouldn't spend so much time reproducing and the species wouldn't survive so well; an example of Evolutionary psychology( as indicated by darwin and developed by William James et al..)

     

    I only ask because a lot of psycho-babblers, pundits and gay-rights people imply that homophobia is culturally constructed. But this doesn't explain why some heterosexual men are reasonably comfortable with the idea of gay rights and gay men, but are repelled by the sight of gay sex.

     

    Of course even if this is true, we don't have to act on our biological instincts. Any ideas anyone? (Im not a scientist)

     

    Gian smile.png

  5. When they say the universe came from nothing, what they mean is it came from nothing that we KNOW about. It could not have come from absolutely nothing in the literal sense.

    Ah ok. So I guess a religious person could say that the nothing we know about could just as easily be called God as anything. Interesting....

    Cheers

    Giansmile.png

  6. If you get Stardust by John Gribbin it will give you a gentle, very readable introduction to chemistry and how all the elements came into being in the cosmos making up everything around us including ourselves. It should help give you a sound start for your sci-fi stories giving them a little bit of scientific plausibility where you can give it! :)

     

    I'm no scientist but desperate to start learning so many thanks for the tip. Layman's science books would be a good place to start.

     

    I have a big gripe with contemporary science fiction in general and Doctor Who in particular. From what Ive seen of it, Doctor Who in the 70s at its best actually had...um...science in it! enough to get children interested. Nowadays it's just alot of designers showing off their design skills and no scientific content whatsoever.

     

    Sci-fi generally has gone rather stale and 'camp' over the last 20 years or so since its heyday in the 50s and 60s. One of the reasons I think is that -sacandalously- there has been no manned landing on another planet for FORTY years!! But of course this ignores what else has been discovered in cosmology by eg the Hubble telescope, and probes to the furthest reaches of our star system.

    It'll probably be just a dream but Im hoping to breathe a bit of life into sci-fi -that is to say breathe a bit of SCIENCE into science fiction!

  7. Chemical elements are defined by the number of protons in their nucleus; each additional proton creates a new element. The first 98 elements occur naturally. The ones that contain 92 protons or more, become more and more unstable with each additional proton such that eventually they can only be synthesised in the lab and exist for only a very brief time before they lose some of their nuclei components and become one of the more stable elements with fewer protons.

     

    The upshot is that the chances of finding a new stable element are about zero so the chances of life forming, based on an undiscovered element, are the same.

     

    Thanks, guess I need to study science properly

     

    In the universe, the lighter elements are generally more common, due to the more common elements being made by the fusion of hydrogen and helium. Elements like carbon and oxygen are in great abundance mainly because there are direct and easy ways of producing them from fusion (collision of 3 helium atoms at once, which are extremely common, especially in large stars and red giants), and stemming from that, their low atomic weight. Their low atomic weight also contributes to the fusion being exothermic (for example, hydrogen (1) atoms fusing together releases more energy than helium (4) atoms fusing together, because the helium as a greater atomic weight than the hydrogen. So as the elements gets heavier and heavier in atomic weight, the fusion produces less and less energy until you reach an iron or nickel isotope. At that point further fusion no longer produces energy. The fusion of heavier elements are actually endothermic (absorbs energy), but the fission of these heavier elements slowly becomes more exothermic (releases energy). Heavy elements are generally made form fusion (maybe fusion, then decay/fisson of the heavier, unstable isotopes). So the heavier elements are generally less abundant, as the production of them are not favourable because their production absorbs energy.

     

    So what has this got to do with your question? Well, if heavy elements (like uranium or even lead) are quite rare, then ultra-heavy elements like the unknown elements (all first 118 elements are discovered) you hypothesized must be even rarer, both because their production would absorb large amounts of energy, and not be favourable, and because there are no obvious routes using abundant elements to synthesize them by fusion (such ultra-heavy elements would require quite heavy elements smashing into each other, when those heavy elements are very rare themselves). So even if there are a stable, ultra-heavy element/s, it is extremely unlikely to be utilised by life because of how rare it would be.

     

    many thanks for your reply. I never studied science properly in skool, guess I need to get on with it. The more I read the more intrigued I am.:rolleyes:

  8. I'm no scientist, but does anyone think it possible that there are chemical elements and chemistry in the universe not yet discovered by human science?

     

    I'm thinking about writing a sci-fi story about alien life. Most scientists describe life as being carbon-based, with the possibility of silicon-based life (this last is very much the province of sci-fi writers.) If there were other chemical elements as yet undiscovered, perhaps these too would be conducive to life, which would be of a very different form.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.