From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Oct 07 2000 - 01:53:59 MDT
stdnt428@hampshire.edu wrote:
>
> > **************************************************************************
> > My question: Does Gay (GLBT included) culture serve an Extropianistic role
> > in human society?
> > **************************************************************************
>
> > > That is actaully, exactly NOT what I am getting at here. For example, the
> > > role of Gay Artist or Gay Philosopher is pretty common. My question,
> > > is... just as a bee colony produces worker bees, warrior bees, a queen
> > > bee, etc... perhaps evolution produces Gay people for the advantage of
> > > the society they are in. For example, because GLBTers don't bring the same
> > > perceptions about relationships, they are more likely to introduce new and
> > > novel social memes. ... Any ideas about this?
> >
> > Yes, as a matter of fact. I think that studies I've seen showing higher than
> > average IQ are interesting, and the traditional role of the lifelong bachelor
> > philosopher/scientist (in or out of the priesthood) being free of family
> > obligations to pursue the quest for knowledge. However, I think this is sort of
> > a chicken/egg argument. Is it because more geniuses are free thinkers that they
> > become gay (or realize they are gay), or that more gays become free thinkers and
> > more imaginative because they apply the same more-breaking tools that led to
> > their 'outing' (personally or socially) to other things the world considers
> > 'truth'?
>
> Yes, there is a chicken-egg issue. However, if one takes an evolutionary
> perspective, for trait to be that persistant (2-8% of the population,
> depending on who's opinion you ask) and that consistant (throughout
> human history)... there must be an evolutionary advantage. My suggestion
> is that the advantage is on a social level - that the benifit is to
> society...
>
> However, the fact that homosexuality exists in the rest of the animal
> kingdom goes against this thesis since animals probably don't make the
> same social contributions...
>
I would suggest perusing Howard Bloom's latest book, "Global Brain",
before we buy into the idea that group or social evolution is not
important across non-human species. I have only begun the book myself
but he brings up quite good arguments.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:27 MST