From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 08:27:24 MST
> Oh, man... I can't resist, there's a couple things in here that I take
> exception with, and that NNG has attempted to call ME on a couple times
> already:
I did actually finish the conversation off-list, making many of the same
points you did. His reply was that we need a much greater genetic pool in
order to provide the best quality of genes after a global disaster (i.e.
nuclear warfare or a meteorite hitting the earth). Oddly enough, I gave up
at that point. Summary of reply:
> Arguments:
> 1) Sex exists for reproduction. Failure to use things for their intended
> purpose is an abnormality.
The first point is that this argument is simply a Darwinian riff on the
Aquinan differentiation between natural and unnatural behaviour - in which
case it is a religious argument (Incidentally, talk of 'intended purpose'
implies a creator and cannot be counted as a secular argument. Evolution is
not a planned process - unless you see the hand of a deity behind it - in
which case, this ceases to be a secular argument). The second point is that
the division is specious - given a genetic predisposition towards
homosexuality, and extensive evidence of homosexuality in the animal
kingdom, such behaviour is demonstrably natural. Moreover, sex is mostly
practised for recreation rather than procreation and will continue to be
while contraception is available - in which case very few members of the
population will be using 'sex' for its 'intended purpose' - though if one
has an inbuilt tendency towards enjoying sex (with a partner of either
gender) it would appear facile to suggest that said behaviour is not
'intended.' If it is not 'intended,' why are they doing it?
> 2) Sexual activities that do not result in reproduction are a waste of
> energy for the species, as they do not allow the population size to grow,
and
> therefore do not enable the rate of evolution to be as fast, and therefore
hold the
> species back in it's development.
Given present population levels, I hardly think population size is anything
we have to worry about; such an argument could only apply if our species
were in imminent risk of extinction (others would argue that we urgently
need to reduce population levels drastically for any social progress to be
possible). Evolution is a response to changing environmental conditions - a
continual process of adaptation; what it is not is a linear striving for
perfection. Moreover, evolution works through natural selection - killing
the unfit and reducing the immediate gene pool, rather than increasing it.
However, as we currently control our environment to a significant degree,
evolution is not likely to make any significant inroads on our species for
the foreseeable future. A more likely possibility is that genetic
engineering will determine the future direction of our evolution, possibly
obsoleting 'natural childbirth' altogether.
> "welcome"? No. Natural, yes.
Natural, yes. But to say that we 'need' warfare for population control seems
to be going overboard with enthusiasm. For someone who claimed to be seeking
a transcendental basis for morality you appear to have embraced Malthusian
riffs upon Darwin with abandon. Incidentally, surely warfare does "not allow
the population size to grow, and therefore do(es) not enable the rate of
evolution to be as fast, and therefore hold(s) the species back in it's
development?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT