4 ms·

I'm tempted to say nations and states that support homosexuality (which is by far the most colossal structural opposition to reproduction) have "a net negative

I'm tempted to say nations and states that support homosexuality (which is by far the most colossal structural opposition to reproduction) have "a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint." What do you think?

lutusp 13y ago
The answer is that, in a world steered more by ideas than children (or more by memes than genes), one's sexual orientation is much less important, so accepting homosexuality doesn't reduce the true fitness of the species, which is a composite of ideas and genes. To those who doubt the significance of ideas compared to children, I ask if they can recall the names of Einstein's children. No?
- msandford 13y ago
  I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Not at this point I might argue. The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. This is just what I was able to come up with off the top of my head. We're all intellectually indebted to Einstein for relativity.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Einstein also contributed to quantum theory and a number of other physical fields. Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. > The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. > One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. > If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. It helps us understand reality. It provides the theoretical basis for nuclear power. It's also the theoretical basis for fusion power, a future development. It helps us to understand the universe. But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything.
    - msandford 13y ago
      > Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. Up to a point understanding reality has survival value. We're well beyond that. For example, dunces are still able to have kids and thus are just as fit -- if not fitter -- than smart people. Evolutionarily. No, the computer I'm sitting at doesn't require understanding quantum theory. Computers are (largely) built out of transistors and they're decidedly classic devices. You don't need any quantum mechanics to understand a transistor. Quantum effects only come into play when you're making exceedingly tiny transistors, and they hurt rather than help. > No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. GPS can only work because we understand relativity and thus can correct for it. Transistors can work just fine if we're ignorant of quantum effects. GPS's locating ability goes from meters to many kilometers without understanding relativity. If you want to argue that GPS would be just as good if it could resolve only 10km, OK, but most would disagree with you. > Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. Most reproduction is done well in advance of deep learning and understanding so I might argue that the ideas don't play in evolutionarily. Dumb or uneducated people reproduce just as successfully as smart or educated ones. I don't have a study to back this up but if you can find one to the contrary I'd love to know about it. > We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. Actually a lot of research shows that we're the dominant species because we've taken a serious evolutionary right-turn by shedding all the fur, walking upright and having hands that allow us to carry things. All the things that you would need for the persistence hunt where you basically walk/jog/run an animal to death. Our ability to shed heat by having a fairly high surface area to mass ratio and little/no fur might be more important than our brains in many ways. > But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything. I'll ignore the part where you pass off opinions as fact and move on. This is a logical fallacy, nature absolutely does waste things. Suggesting otherwise is a bit nutty or requires that you construct a tautology. The idea that every single species on the planet is 100% tuned optimally is patently ludicrous; if that were true no evolution would take place anymore since everything would be perfect. If we accept that the world changes (which it does) and that adaptation takes time (I don't know how else it happens) then we can't help but conclude that nature is wasting things all the time, however good it's doing. Since evolution can't predict the future it wastes plenty with unsuccessful mutations.
actsasbuffoon 13y ago
Gay people are gay whether the country they live in accepts them or not.

lutusp 13y ago

The answer is that, in a world steered more by ideas than children (or more by memes than genes), one's sexual orientation is much less important, so accepting homosexuality doesn't reduce the true fitness of the species, which is a composite of ideas and genes. To those who doubt the significance of ideas compared to children, I ask if they can recall the names of Einstein's children. No?

msandford 13y ago
I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Not at this point I might argue. The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. This is just what I was able to come up with off the top of my head. We're all intellectually indebted to Einstein for relativity.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Einstein also contributed to quantum theory and a number of other physical fields. Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. > The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. > One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. > If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. It helps us understand reality. It provides the theoretical basis for nuclear power. It's also the theoretical basis for fusion power, a future development. It helps us to understand the universe. But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything.
  - msandford 13y ago
    > Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. Up to a point understanding reality has survival value. We're well beyond that. For example, dunces are still able to have kids and thus are just as fit -- if not fitter -- than smart people. Evolutionarily. No, the computer I'm sitting at doesn't require understanding quantum theory. Computers are (largely) built out of transistors and they're decidedly classic devices. You don't need any quantum mechanics to understand a transistor. Quantum effects only come into play when you're making exceedingly tiny transistors, and they hurt rather than help. > No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. GPS can only work because we understand relativity and thus can correct for it. Transistors can work just fine if we're ignorant of quantum effects. GPS's locating ability goes from meters to many kilometers without understanding relativity. If you want to argue that GPS would be just as good if it could resolve only 10km, OK, but most would disagree with you. > Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. Most reproduction is done well in advance of deep learning and understanding so I might argue that the ideas don't play in evolutionarily. Dumb or uneducated people reproduce just as successfully as smart or educated ones. I don't have a study to back this up but if you can find one to the contrary I'd love to know about it. > We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. Actually a lot of research shows that we're the dominant species because we've taken a serious evolutionary right-turn by shedding all the fur, walking upright and having hands that allow us to carry things. All the things that you would need for the persistence hunt where you basically walk/jog/run an animal to death. Our ability to shed heat by having a fairly high surface area to mass ratio and little/no fur might be more important than our brains in many ways. > But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything. I'll ignore the part where you pass off opinions as fact and move on. This is a logical fallacy, nature absolutely does waste things. Suggesting otherwise is a bit nutty or requires that you construct a tautology. The idea that every single species on the planet is 100% tuned optimally is patently ludicrous; if that were true no evolution would take place anymore since everything would be perfect. If we accept that the world changes (which it does) and that adaptation takes time (I don't know how else it happens) then we can't help but conclude that nature is wasting things all the time, however good it's doing. Since evolution can't predict the future it wastes plenty with unsuccessful mutations.

actsasbuffoon 13y ago

Gay people are gay whether the country they live in accepts them or not.