Your wrote above that: "1.)all heterosexual "behavior" follows natural selection patterns, whether for the elimination of traits that do not convey competitive advantage or development of traits that do; and, 2.) that a distinct lack of reproduction in a Item 1 above says that heterosexual behavior conduces to some traits that may not convey competitive advantage. On that much we surely agree. The competetition you refer to is that existing among the traits (e.g., associated with sexual preferences) transmitted by heterosexual behavior to progeny. And the heterosexual behavior referred to is that of reproduction. The wide variation among traits transmitted by heterosexual reproduction thus compete with one another in respect of the environment in which all available traits are potentially expresssed. Among the traits transmitted are those associated with the wide variation in potential and active sexual expression in the progeny, some of which sexual expression will be adaptaive in respect of the environment of the progeny and some of which will not be. Whether the species survives through further generations depends on the relative frequency of expression of some traits versus others. Flexibility in having a variety of traits available for competition is what natural selection entails. That fleixibility depends on the existence of variation of traits both between and within individuals. To survive through many generations and thus through many different and changing environmental conditions two things must happen: (1) some amount of heterosexual reproduction must of course occur (thus your item 2 is patently obvious) and (2) a wide random variation of traits must continue to eixst so that the relative frequency of one trait versus another triat can change and thus allow the species to adapt and re-adapt again and again over long time periods. Thus, Darwinian evolutionary theory holds that random variation of traits exists first, and then some traits are selected more or less frequently as needed according to changing environmental circumstance. There must be variablilty for there to be competition among triats and changes over time in relative frequencies. Traits associated with preferences for non-heterosexual behavior thus have an adaptive role in being potentially available for changes in their relatively frequency of expression to accommodate changing environemntal conditions. It is rigidity of expression (non-competition among traits) or the nonexistence of a wide variation of traits needed for competition that can render a species unadaptable. There is plenty of reason to agree, as you rightly insist we should, that heterosexual behavior is absolutely necessary for species survival. But in addition there is plenty of reason, from the perspective of Darwinian evolutionary theory, to agree that the the existence of personality traits favoring non-heteroxesual behaviors also favor species survival and, thus, natural selection, by allowing for adjustments downward in the rate of reproduction to favor adaptation in times of overpopulation. To assure that the human species will be able to lower its reproduction rate, human beings are possessed of a varitey of sexual preferences that can be expressed to the advanatage of the disadvantage of adaptation depending on the environmental and group conditons at the time. The Darwinian model is clearly consistent with the point of view asserting that for the species to be able to sustain itself it must maintain a wide variety of potential traits associated with sexual preference, traits available to be expressed at higher or lower frequencies depending on changing conditions. So if we should have discussions about what mix of personality and environment conduces to behaviors that oppose natural selection, as you soundly advise, we need to first establish what sexual behaviors do and do not oppose natural selection. To know that, we have to know the environmental conditions existing at the time when the natural selection (of the expression of competiting traits) is taking place. I would say then that the two issues that concern you--the first about what kind of sexual behavior opposes and what kind of sexual behavior favors natural selection and the second about what mix of personality and environment lead to one or the other kind of behavior--are linked. They are linked conspicuously in today's era when it seems reasonable to justify non-heterosexual behavior on the grounds of adaptation by reducing the realative frequency of reproduction in an era of overpopulation--even if, as you say, the effect of such reduction in population control is miniscule. The fact about the insignificant meagerness of the effect of non-heterosexuality in reducing the size of the population could be used, however, to greatly bolster the argument that existing very high levels of heterosexuality are clearly not adaptive. If anyone's grounds for wanting to examine psychological motives for non-heterosexual behavior is based on the argument that only heterosexual behavior does not oppose natrual selection, which is how I have been understanding your wish to further study the motives for non-heterosexual behavior, I do still fail to see where one can find such grounds to be applicable in an era of overpopulation, pollution, and resource depletion.
sexually reproducing species (e.g. homosexual lifestyle) would lead to only one natural selection conclusion -- extinction.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.