I assume it's covered in the literature, but naively the homosexual sex could be something akin to grooming, but results in a far more powerful chemical cocktail. Similar to sex in humans where the function of sex isn't always to reproduce (ideal Catholics notwithstanding).
I am very positively impressed by your writing and ideas. Thanks for your efforts.
I have a question
In another essay I think you said ‘biology is behavior’. I also noted that you believe some behaviors are ‘good’ while others are ‘bad’. Yet, since Nature (the natural world which can be investigated by science) is ‘amoral’ (do you agree with this assertion), how could behavior (which is biology) be moral (good or bad)?
Nicely expressed! "Just so" stories are so intuitively appealing to people. Some might find that sufficient reason to believe we must have "evolved" a specific need to discover purpose in random events! We could call it the evolution of teleological thinking! So that people would be pre-disposed to search for the Ultimate Meaning.
I jest.
Your discussion of the teleological fallacy touches on a subtle and intriguing distinction. As you say, evolution is "not a process that creates specific traits to solve specific problems." Yet, a hair's-breadth away is the reasonable notion that some traits have adaptive significance sufficient to confer a selective advantage to populations with that trait. Such adaptive significance might well have all the characteristics of a "solution" to some environmental problem, from the peculiar perspective of that particular species' survival. I'm not quibbling with your argument; I completely agree. I just find it fascinating that evolution somehow seems like it solves specific problems by merely piggy backing on the simple, brute logic that only existing individuals can procreate.
I assume it's covered in the literature, but naively the homosexual sex could be something akin to grooming, but results in a far more powerful chemical cocktail. Similar to sex in humans where the function of sex isn't always to reproduce (ideal Catholics notwithstanding).
I am very positively impressed by your writing and ideas. Thanks for your efforts.
I have a question
In another essay I think you said ‘biology is behavior’. I also noted that you believe some behaviors are ‘good’ while others are ‘bad’. Yet, since Nature (the natural world which can be investigated by science) is ‘amoral’ (do you agree with this assertion), how could behavior (which is biology) be moral (good or bad)?
"...You know, like monkeys and children." - Genius!
Nicely expressed! "Just so" stories are so intuitively appealing to people. Some might find that sufficient reason to believe we must have "evolved" a specific need to discover purpose in random events! We could call it the evolution of teleological thinking! So that people would be pre-disposed to search for the Ultimate Meaning.
I jest.
Your discussion of the teleological fallacy touches on a subtle and intriguing distinction. As you say, evolution is "not a process that creates specific traits to solve specific problems." Yet, a hair's-breadth away is the reasonable notion that some traits have adaptive significance sufficient to confer a selective advantage to populations with that trait. Such adaptive significance might well have all the characteristics of a "solution" to some environmental problem, from the peculiar perspective of that particular species' survival. I'm not quibbling with your argument; I completely agree. I just find it fascinating that evolution somehow seems like it solves specific problems by merely piggy backing on the simple, brute logic that only existing individuals can procreate.