From: Daniel J. Boone (djboone@romea.com)
Date: Fri Sep 10 1999 - 17:03:56 MDT
>Let me rephrase: I'd be surprised to find non-cultural innate
>preferences for homosexual beauty, unless it was a spandrel (= side
>effect of something that evolved for a different purpose) - probably the
>result of retargeting the heterosexual preferences. I'd be *very*
>surprised to find innate preferences that had evolved directly. What's
>the selection pressure? To the extent same-sex preferences would evolve
>at all, you'd expect them to evolve out of existence.
It is a fallacy, I think, (though I am no expert on evolution) to conclude that there
can be no evolutionary selection for traits associated with individuals (such as the
elderly or the exclusive homosexual) who do not breed. In animals (such as humans)
where social grouping is common, evolution can select for characteristics that impede
or detract from individual procreation, if the characteristics are also somehow
associated with increased group survival.
If, for example, longevity past the age of fertility makes it easier for the group to
survive (because grandma can watch or teach the kids) then there will be selection
pressure in favor of longevity even if it results in genetic tradeoffs that are less
than optimal for reproduction during the fertile years.
Similarly, if a non-innate preference for homosexual beauty facilitates in some
fashion the sucessful integration of homosexual individuals into a social grouping,
and if those individuals play a role in group survival, such selection pressure might
take place, might it not? As anecdotal evidence, I note that it is said that
homosexual men played an important role in some Native American cultures, including
medical, teaching, and shamanistic roles that may have promoted group survival.
Wild theorizing, here, from a position of inadequate knowledge. Like you, I would be
surprised. But it may be possible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:06 MST