[ExI] sex - was Re: The smart-stupid dimension

[William Flynn Wallace]

although still far from powerless the genes are no longer it total control
of the robots they created, us.

John K Clark     ​


Learning was a feature of organic life millions of years before man.  It
functioned as a feedback system to the instincts the genes provided.  So
even one-celled animals were not robots of a strict S-R type.  Now we
understand a bit about epigenetics, which change genes during our
lifetimes.  Depending on your focus, genes provide about half the causal
properties of our everyday behavior - more in some areas, less in others.

bill w

But if all that is true why does homosexuality exist and why do people make
condoms?

John K Clark     ​


I have seen evolutionary psychologists attribute homosexuality to the
advantages such people can provide a tribe.  Out of the mating game, which
is an advantage, the homosexual can contribute to the tribe in many ways,
such as helping his/her family like an old maid aunt or grandparent.
Whether it is a 'natural' thing or the result of genetics errors along the
way is not now known.  As Kinsey found out, it is certainly not an all or
nothing thing.  Freud argued that man was pansexual and socialization
narrowed the choices.  Any role for early conditioning is still unknown.
As we know, attempts to change the focus of the sex drive are useless.
Even Pavlov failed.
bill w

As for condoms, a man may not want to provide for the upbringing of a child
he may produce with certain women, and a woman may pressure a man to use
one because she doesn't want a baby - perhaps not at all or perhaps not
with this guy.  In the heat of passion it may be forgotten, which is a
victory for the genes.  Sexual diseases can play a role, of course.

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:12 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>> ​ ​
>> What do evolutionary theorists say about the origins of this?
>> [prudishness]
>
>
> Genes don't care if we have fun or not, they only care about getting
> passed onto the next generation. So it's not surprising that genes would
> endow their gene delivery vehicles (us) with a revulsion at the very
> thought of mixing our genes with a very close relative because that would
> increased the likelihood the resulting offspring would not live long enough
> to reach reproductive age. If someone is unrelated to me my genes would say
> it's OK to mix my genes with her if she looked healthy, but my genes don't
> want competition so they would be prudish about 2 people unrelated to each
> other and unrelated to me having sex and producing offspring.  My genes
> don't want me to have sex with a close relative but they encourage me to be
> altruistic to them because, being relatives, we have many genes in common.
>
>
> But if all that is true why does homosexuality exist and why do people
> make condoms? Because although genes can create tendencies they are not the
> only thing driving behavior, not since Evolution invented brains half a
> billion years ago. Brains were a necessary invention because the
> environment was far too complex to preprogram the behavior most likely to
> benefit the individual's genes in all circumstances. The downside of this,
> from the genes point of view not ours, is that although still far from
> powerless the genes are no longer it total control of the robots they
> created, us.
>
> John K Clark     ​
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170520/1c74f680/attachment.html>