From: "John T. Duryea" <jtduryea-AT-dmv.com>
Subject: Re: Nietzsche on Mill and Darwin
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:30:57 -0600




>>Hello, this is ground control. Please return back to planet
>>earth you two. Let's repeat the Darwinist proposition
>>again, lesbianism is genetic suicide. That is, lesbians do
>>not get pregnant and do not pass on their genes. This is
>>the counter arguement to an idea expressed by Nathan
>>that lesbianism might be genetic. Now, let's hear a rational
>>pro and con. Let's leave out hyperbole about homophobia,
>>lesbians being a separate species and WWII bombing
>>causing Lamarkian transformations in the womb.
>>
>>By the way, having a Darwinist, talk about evolution
>>without resorting to Lamarkism is like an Italian
>>trying to talk with his hands tied, and just about as much
>>fun to watch (same as a Marxist trying to argue without
>>appealing to Darwinism).
>>
>>John T. Duryea
>
>My point, John, was simply that a hypothetical trait, in this case
>susceptibility to stress (such as being bombed by B-29s) in the form of a
>disruption of fetal development such as to cause a child to turn out
>homosexual might very well end up advantageous to the group within which
>such a trait might exist, assuming that over-population is as much a,
>perhaps even a greater, danger than under-population. There is nothing
>Lamarkian in this--no acquired traits, in other words, merely not enough or
>too much of an enzyme or hormone being produced at a critical point during
>pregnancy. The genetic trait here, in other words, would be the particular
>susceptibility during pregnancy to stress (such as being bombed) that might
>hypothetically result in increased instances of homosexuality.
>
>You keep using the phrase "genetic suicide." In the context in which you
are
>using this phrase, it is really perfectly meaningless and absurd. Whether
>certain genes possessed by an individual are passed on or not is absolutely
>irrelevant to the question of evolution. The only relevance is to types or
>groups, not to individuals. Evolution has nothing to do with personal
>survival. Even if 80 percent of women became lesbians and refused to
>reproduce, there is no reason to believe that this might not end up
>advantaging the other 20 percent and their progeny--certainly, their
progeny
>would most likely be advantaged by a lack of competitors.
>
>Best,
>
>Steve
>
>
You keep using the word "evolution". In the context in which you are
using this word, it is really perfectly meaningless and absurd. The
above post is merely about population control and sheds no light
whatsoever on how species come into being in the first place. There
are a whole wealth of population control strategies developed
by creatures and we could discuss these endlessly chasing all these
rabbits back into their holes and not be one iota closer to understanding
how a species comes into being.

Once again, the proposition was made that lesbianism is genetic. The
counter to this in the context of evolution (not population control) is that
a Darwinist would view a lesbian as an individual who is committing
genetic suicide. That is, she would not pass her genes on to the next
generation and would therefore be selected out. Now, before we go any
further, I can assure you that I am not trying to be homophobic. Indeed,
at the sight of a beautiful woman I often feel like a lesbian trapped
in a man's body, but that's my problem and I'm trying to work on it. As
an aside, it seems that the female form, as opposed to the male
form, is expressly designed to stimulate one's sexual drive so I can
certainly sympathise with them especially as one is also freed of the
burden of raising children and can devote all of one's time and
money on ones self.

Back to work. I've already posted my objection to lesbianism as being
genetic on the basis that it denies humans free will and in effect denies
the humanity in humans reducing us to the level of bees, termites and
ants.

I've an additional objection to your line of thought above. It seems to
imply that humans are herd animals or, not quite so wrong, that humans
were originally group predators. This was most certainly not the case
as scientifically proven by exhaustive excavations of the ice age living
sites of homo sapien sapiens. The first humans were solitary
predators with a male/female pair bond occupying a hunting
territory with a den site. This life form came suddenly into being
around 40,000 years ago. The solitary pair bond was made possible
by the technology of the projectile weapon and the human male body
form is designed expressly for throwing the weapon as opposed to
getting up close and jabbing and taking the resultant odd blow from
the prey. This was a major evolutionary leap.

Along with the creation of this weapon technology came a profound
change in the relationship between male and female. From the time
around 6,000,000 years ago on, the hominid form from which we can
trace our descent was that of a group predator. With homo sapien
sapiens came for the first time the male/female solitary pair bond.
Perhaps our newest and most fragile adaptation was a psychological
one? Imagine the reluctance of the first female to leave the safety
of the group with all its female group core bonding and to place one's
survival on a single male. All I can say, he must have been a real
lover, just like me!!!

John T. Duryea



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---