Darth Servo wrote:I'd really like to see HOW evolution promiotes these things since homosexuality is essentially an evolutionary dead end.
Well, survival of the fittest is a concept that would promote greed above all things, but typically, nobody sensible will argue that evolution is morally correct, simply that it's a process. The same way that people don't have moral arguments for gravity, evolution isn't something deemed morally correct, just something that's said to exist.
Either way, it's stupid to claim that something good can't arise from something bad, as the article posted in this same forum made quite apparent.
Zero132132 wrote:
Well, survival of the fittest is a concept that would promote greed above all things,...
Too simple.
Cooperation and altruism helps a group to survive, in competition with other groups or with predators or prey it gives you an advantage.
While egoism give you an advantage at the expense of the group.
I have to disclose that I'm quite sceptical towards the just-so stories often told about the evolutionary foundations of human behaviour and I'm also not an expert.
I would think that we'd evolve to be a more socially inclined animal because we spend much of our lives outside of the womb maturing. We're forced by circumstance to rely on others, and also to help others as well.
There's also the possibility that much of human behavior is really governed by what we pick up from the society around us and how they act, and societies that advocated absolute greed at the expense of others didn't do as well as ones that promoted success of the society itself.
Really, the phrase should read: Survival of the fittest species. Screwing your fellow humans over when cooperation is the only way for your scrawny lil' self to survive is not really a good route for survival, of you or your species.
Note: only apes that consistantly hump each other (i.e. bonobos) are really benevolent and nice to each other. Tough, badass monkeys, such as chimps, who totally kick ass, half-kill each other just to establish dominence. They also eat flesh. Kick ass dude. Anyways, is there a lesson here? Sex=morality? I'd love to see Joe Fundie's interpretation of that one.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
wolveraptor wrote:Sex=morality? I'd love to see Joe Fundie's interpretation of that one.
Joe Fundie, by the way, would insist sex in animals is a totally amoral issue, because animals don't have souls...
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
