3 ms·

Humans have many traits that seem to support survival at the tribal level, and having a spectrum of homosexual and heterosexual individuals could well have supp

Humans have many traits that seem to support survival at the tribal level, and having a spectrum of homosexual and heterosexual individuals could well have supported child rearing or reduced divisive competition. Just look at bonobos.

toasterlovin 8y ago
See my reply to rubatuga. If the genetic math doesn't work out for helping raise your sibling's children vs. having children of your own, it absolutely doesn't work for raising the tribe's children (who are less related to you than your sibling's children) vs. having your own.
- notabee 8y ago
  I think you missed my point. If survival of human groups generally occurred at the tribal level, i.e. either a tribe successfully cooperated and survived or suffered excessive discord and died out unless they were adopted by a different tribe, the benefits would not rely just on direct actions within an atomic family unit. The group had to have enough genetic diversity, or invite enough in, to prevent disease from inbreeding but generally most of the tribe would be somewhat related. The "math" surrounding just caring about whoever has 1/2 or 1/4 of one's genetic material may not be as important as the survival of the larger cooperative group. All of those little selfish increments might not matter if isolated, catastrophic group collapse rendered them nil. I think you are trying to over-simplify the scenario. Other traits point to increased cooperation being crucial, such as the idea that concealed ovulation attenuated direct male competition during fertile periods. Even in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins describes game theory situations where certain ratios of populations are stable, like the simplified hawks versus doves. In the same way, there may have been a stable ratio of homosexual tendencies or sexual flexibility that acted as a cooperative buffer, as they would assist in child rearing in the same way that you mention grandmothers. Trying to boil it down to just grandmothers because they might have the largest genetic "interest" is overly reductionist. It's not just an addition problem. And bonobos are a great example of all with all sexual bonding being very close to us genetically. Who's to say that our cultural notions of what homosexuality entails translates across to thousands of years of pre-historical culture?

toasterlovin 8y ago

See my reply to rubatuga. If the genetic math doesn't work out for helping raise your sibling's children vs. having children of your own, it absolutely doesn't work for raising the tribe's children (who are less related to you than your sibling's children) vs. having your own.

notabee 8y ago
I think you missed my point. If survival of human groups generally occurred at the tribal level, i.e. either a tribe successfully cooperated and survived or suffered excessive discord and died out unless they were adopted by a different tribe, the benefits would not rely just on direct actions within an atomic family unit. The group had to have enough genetic diversity, or invite enough in, to prevent disease from inbreeding but generally most of the tribe would be somewhat related. The "math" surrounding just caring about whoever has 1/2 or 1/4 of one's genetic material may not be as important as the survival of the larger cooperative group. All of those little selfish increments might not matter if isolated, catastrophic group collapse rendered them nil. I think you are trying to over-simplify the scenario. Other traits point to increased cooperation being crucial, such as the idea that concealed ovulation attenuated direct male competition during fertile periods. Even in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins describes game theory situations where certain ratios of populations are stable, like the simplified hawks versus doves. In the same way, there may have been a stable ratio of homosexual tendencies or sexual flexibility that acted as a cooperative buffer, as they would assist in child rearing in the same way that you mention grandmothers. Trying to boil it down to just grandmothers because they might have the largest genetic "interest" is overly reductionist. It's not just an addition problem. And bonobos are a great example of all with all sexual bonding being very close to us genetically. Who's to say that our cultural notions of what homosexuality entails translates across to thousands of years of pre-historical culture?