[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I don't think so. While a greater number of heterosexuals do get AIDS in Africa as compared to America, I STILL DOUBT the percentage as a sampling of the population as a whole is greater.

For instance...let's say there are 1 million people in Africa. 97% are straight and 3% are gay (I think a reasonable average given the findings of most research). If there were 200,000 people with HIV and 193,999 of them where straight and 6001 of them where gay, there would still be a greater percentage of the population who are gay getting the disease then the straight people, despite the majority of the HIV infected being straight. You'd STILL be more likely to get a HIV from someone who was engaging in homosexual intercourse than heterosexual intercourse. Now..if you can find me a study that shows that a lower percentage of the homosexual population of Africa (as a percentage of their total population) getting AIDS as compared to heterosexuals not engaged in sex with those who have engaged in homosexual intercourse, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, you're still more likely to get HIV via homosexual intercourse than heterosexual statistically.



Or possibly anal sex. Why doesn't anyone do an authoritative study on the percentage of people getting HIV who have engaged in anal sex? AIDS amongst lesbians not having relations with bisexuals or IV drug users is quite rare. That might answer why there is such differences in transmission between cultures.

Regardless...male homosexual intercourse STILL statistically has a greater probability of life-or-death health problems than brother/sister intercourse (assuming first generational incest).

You can't really logically argue for bias based on health concerns for one and not the other.

you didn't take something into account with your calculation. If only 3% of the population are gay, those 3% only have sex with each other as gay men dont have sex with woman, making a much smaller group to select from which increases the risk. Its like having a million chickens in a big big big farm and a few get sick and having 10 000 chickens in a tiny barn with a few getting sick, the 10 000 are going to have a higher %

[Kevin]

There may be more heterosexuals that have AIDS now. But the percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS compared to those who don't, is a smaller percentage than homosexuals that have AIDS, compared to those who don't.

It would only make sense that more heterosexuals have AIDS. There are MANY MANY MANY more of us.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

you didn't take something into account with your calculation. If only 3% of the population are gay, those 3% only have sex with each other as gay men dont have sex with woman, making a much smaller group to select from which increases the risk. Its like having a million chickens in a big big big farm and a few get sick and having 10 000 chickens in a tiny barn with a few getting sick, the 10 000 are going to have a higher %

Despite the category, there are gay men who regularly engage in homosexual intercourse who have sex with women. Also, the size of the sample doesn't matter. AGAIN, I was talking about the percentage over or under the representation of the population. In your example, in this "small farm" of America, it would be the 10,000 gay chickens versus the few heterosexual chickens. In the bigger farm of Africa, you've got more straight sick chickens and a smaller percentage of gay sick chickens. If you can show me that around 3 pecent or less of the population of HIV infected in Africa have not had sex with someone who has engaged in homosexual intercourse, you'd have a point. I don't see anyone trotting out the numbers and I'd guess that you aren't going to find such a thing if the numbers where available. Assuming people in Africa aren't any more or less gay than anywhere else and that for some reason in most places the disease seems to spread easier amongst gay males than anywhere else, it would seem to be an illogical assumption that there is not a less than representative population (or in fact, an over-representation even if the numbers are still smaller than that of the heterosexual AIDS population) of gay HIV infected people in Africa. Again...if you've got numbers to the contrary, feel free to post them. Otherwise, the observation based on numbers that I know that can be reasonably validated stands.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

Hehe HIV Babies come from Hetro Sexual couples, not gay couples

How many of those heterosexual couples had partners who engaged in homosexual intercourse (with their knowledge or without)? You don't have to be considered "gay" to have "gay sex". You can be married with children and regularly engage in homosexual intercourse. I'm pretty sure it happens quite regularly.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

How many of those heterosexual couples had partners who engaged in homosexual intercourse (with their knowledge or without)? You don't have to be considered "gay" to have "gay sex". You can be married with children and regularly engage in homosexual intercourse. I'm pretty sure it happens quite regularly.

Majority of hetros that get HIV come from other hetros that got HIV or from Drug abuse. The reason the gay population was hit so hard from it first, not because they are gay but is a smaller group and the amount of UNPROTECTED SEX and amount of different partners helped it spread like wild fire. The very first comfirmed infections from the 50's and 60's where straight people. I think there are now 6 samples from between the 50's to 70's discovered in the last couple years. And the reason it was detected as a new desease was because of the smaller tight nit group it was easy to track down partners and discover a pattern of sickness. Research in New York hospitals found at least 10 cases in the late 70s that fit the discription of Aids but at the time was unknown illness. All hetrosexuals.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There may be more heterosexuals that have AIDS now. But the percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS compared to those who don't, is a smaller percentage than homosexuals that have AIDS, compared to those who don't.

It would only make sense that more heterosexuals have AIDS. There are MANY MANY MANY more of us.

Its simple, I will use vancouver as I have numbers for it. 2.1 million hetros estimate, 100 000 homosexuals. Average hetro sleeps with a different person maybe 6 times in a year, average gay person sleeps with a different person every week. So thats 48 more exposures. In 10 years thats 60 for the hetro and 480 people for the gay guy. So the guy has had 0.48% exposure with the population he sleeps with. The hetro 0.0029%. Its simple numbers, not the act but how often and unprotected.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

Majority of hetros that get HIV come from other hetros that got HIV or from Drug abuse. The reason the gay population was hit so hard from it first..

..and still are. I'm still waiting for data that shows that 3% or fewer of those infected with HIV are homosexual. As it stands, it's still riskier to have homosexual intercourse statistically than heterosexual intercourse. It doesn't matter what the reason is. If you engage in homosexual intercourse, you are taking a much larger statistical risk (to a greater or lesser degree depending on where you are located) of dying because of what you are doing than if you are heterosexual. If that isn't a major health concern regarding a form of sexual attraction, even greater than the much smaller statistically probability that any possible genetically malformed offspring may be created in single generational incestual relationship, then I don't know what is.

Maybe someday, they'll find a cure for AIDS, or if your theories are correct homosexuals will stop being more irresponsible than heterosexuals. I don't think your theories are totally correct though.. It's my belief that the reason why AIDS spreads faster in homosexual populations is because the HIV transfers easier via anal sex. The other issues involved with promiscuity and other traditionally sexually immoral behavior may also play a part, but only a part. It seems that of all the research I've looked into has looked very little into the role of anal sex for those who contracted HIV. What a better way for people without easy access to contraceptives (like in Africa) to engage in penetrative sex without the fear of having to raise more children in poverty. Yes...I know, when you ask a person if they do that sort of thing they'll probably tell you "no" even if they do, which makes finding the truth a lot harder. It reminds me of an episode of the Sopranos a few seasons back. None of the mob guys would EVER admit to performing oral sex on women. You'd never get one to go on the record as having gone down on a woman. It was considered a non-manly thing to do, yet just about everyone did it. That's the same difficulty researchers have in understanding sex-related disease. But..it doesn't seem as though they are even really trying.

[Athens]

ok the First Nations population in Vancouver has a higher rate of infection then even the gay population. I wouldn't touch a Vancouver native even if some one paid me. They almost number 50% in some areas. Are you trying to tell me they are all gay? For them its mostly hetro sex and drugs.

[Athens]

It's my belief that the reason why AIDS spreads faster in homosexual populations is because the HIV transfers easier via anal sex.

Well it wouldnt matter how easy it spread if 2 gay man stuck with each other over sleeping with a different guy each week.

[Monique]

For the conservatives who hate gays how would you know what they do or not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

Well it wouldnt matter how easy it spread if 2 gay man stuck with each other over sleeping with a different guy each week.

...or how easy it is for a genetically malformed baby to be born to a brother and sister if they decided to use contraception or sterilization.

I'd assumed we were talking about generailities...like how you said that gay people where much much more promiscuous than straight people? You'll always have exceptions to the rules.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

As it stands, it's still riskier to have homosexual intercourse statistically than heterosexual intercourse.

It's sexual intercourse with a homosexual. There is no such thing as "homosexual intercourse".

And I presume with that you mean "anal sex". From everything I've read and heard the AIDS virus doesn't get transmitted more easily through "the back" door, neither does it know or care whether or not the two people having intercourse are both males, both females or mixed couples.

The reason why it spread so rapidly through the gay communities in the early 80s was because, of course, gay people tended to have multiple partners within exclusively homosexual circles.

The same would have been true, had the heterosexual population been about 3% total. Again, the virus doesn't care.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

It's sexual intercourse with a homosexual. There is no such thing as "homosexual intercourse".

Sure there is. You woman can have sex with a male homosexual and not be engaging in "homosexual intercourse". Two men having sex on the other hand (assuming both are homosexual, which I think is reasonable ) is an example of homosexual interecourse.

And I presume with that you mean "anal sex". From everything I've read and heard the AIDS virus doesn't get transmitted more easily through "the back" door, neither does it know or care whether or not the two people having intercourse are both males, both females or mixed couples.

What percentage of those with HIV (both gay and straight) have engaged anal sex? Is this number greater or less than the average for all humans? If the number is greater, than how can this not be a major point of study in the transmission of HIV? All I've read and heard was has been that not that much research or study has been put into the anal sex issue (maybe for political reasons?) and scientists theorize one thing or another, but nothing concrete has been found either way. The gay lobby has tried SO hard to keep this from being a "gay" disease, that I really do understand why they'd want to shy away from or discourage any scientific study showing an activity that they engage in much more frequently than heterosexual couples is more likely to be what (other than the promiscuity issues) helps in the spread of HIV and explains why the percentage of straight people getting AIDS in non third-world countries is much lower than that of homosexuals.

It wouldn't be the first time that research into the truth of things has been subverted due to politics.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I don't have the statistics as to how many AIDS babies ended up that way because one of their parents engaged in homosexual intercourse. I'd suspect quite a few.

If a person with AIDS chooses to have a child (who might be born with it) it doesn't matter how that person got AIDS in the first place. If they got it from a needle or from heterosexual sex, I suppose you'd just say "them's the brakes," but if it was from a homo then suddenly homos have got to go?

The truth is that both actions results in increased health concerns. You can try and have it both ways, but logically that won't wash.

The health concerns for inbreeding are for other people. You can try to oversimplify that distinction away, but logically that won't wash.

...and explains why the percentage of straight people getting AIDS in non third-world countries is much lower than that of homosexuals.

Why the "non third-world countries" distinction? Have you ever considered that the stigma against homosexuality often reduces homosexuals (in the West) to adopting the reproductive health standards of third-world countries?

[Binarymix]

Sorry if I missed something but how does HIV even factor into this discussion on incest? I don't care how it was brought up, it has no correlation at all, so perhaps you guys should get back on topic

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

HIV happens. It does occur statistically more often with homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Correlation alone does not show causality.

Originally Posted by Kevin

There may be more heterosexuals that have AIDS now. But the percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS compared to those who don't, is a smaller percentage than homosexuals that have AIDS, compared to those who don't.

Correlation alone does not show causality.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'm still waiting for data that shows that 3% or fewer of those infected with HIV are homosexual.

Correlation alone does not show causality.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

...or how easy it is for a genetically malformed baby to be born to a brother and sister if they decided to use contraception or sterilization.

Correlation alone does not show causality.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

...or how easy it is for a genetically malformed baby to be born to a brother and sister if they decided to use contraception or sterilization.

Why do you keep making the distinction between first generation inbreeding and the rest? Do you think that if the taboo against inbreeding were eliminated then the practice would stop after one generation?

[jjlannoo]

Hmmm Well I honestly don't have a problem with incest between consenting adults. If thats what they want to do, let them. Whats the big deal? Its really nobody else's business. I myself will stick to nothing closer then a second cousin.

Though I do distinctly remember having a crush on a first cousin when I was a youngster. I'm sure others have had the same if they are being honest.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Intolerance towards inbreeding is universal across all cultures, to varying degrees

I am aware of that. I'm not convinced that the intolerance is instinctual. It seems more likely that our aversion towards incest is a cultural state. It may reoccurs across cultures because of the almost universal inability of people to empathize with unusual behavior unless that behavior is culturally condoned.

The same phenomenon probably explains much of the cultural intolerance towards homosexuality, although I am aware of a few cultures in which homosexuality was/is accepted to some extent.

If human-tree sex was more common I wouldn't be surprised to see similar taboos form against it.

How would an incest taboo evolve anyway? Incest doesn't hurt anyone except the practitioners and their children. What selective advantage would people have who enforced the taboo during our evolution?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

I am aware of that. I'm not convinced that the intolerance is instinctual. It seems more likely that our aversion towards incest is a cultural state.

How is it any different from the Westermarck Effect? How can you call one nature and the other nurture?

How would an incest taboo evolve anyway?

Kin selection

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The health concerns for inbreeding are for other people. You can try to oversimplify that distinction away, but logically that won't wash.

Nor can you try to oversimplify the impact AIDS has on the rest of the population other than just those who have it.

Why the "non third-world countries" distinction?

Because it's apparent that the two classes are doing something differently.

Correlation alone does not show causality.

Keep repeating it. It's meaningless to your argument, but it sure does help to parrot it when you have nothing else left. The fact remains that If you engage in homosexual intercourse you are taking a much larger statistical risk (to a greater or lesser degree depending on where you are located) of dying because of what you are doing than if you are heterosexual. These are valid health concerns which help fuel taboos just as the lesser health concerns associated with first generational interbreeding.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Why do you keep making the distinction between first generation inbreeding and the rest? Do you think that if the taboo against inbreeding were eliminated then the practice would stop after one generation?

The taboo against first generational incest? Maybe. The debate though isn't whether it will or not (for homosexuality or incest), but rather whether you can make a logical argument that one should be taboo and the other not without using double standards. As we can see...you cannot. Most of the other parts of this debate have gotten off-topic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

How is it any different from the Westermarck Effect? How can you call one nature and the other nurture?

I think it's clear that there are mechanisms like Westermarck that keeps most humans into the cycle of non related adult man/woman couplings in situations. I think it's illogical to assume or theorize that human's normal distaste for same sex attraction for themselves is brought about via nurture but their distaste for sex with close relations is not.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Sure there is. You woman can have sex with a male homosexual and not be engaging in "homosexual intercourse". Two men having sex on the other hand...

So is two straight men having sex also "homosexual sex"? LOL.

You simply defined "homosexual sex" as being two gay men having anal sex (which is okay).

So for the sake of the argument, just a quick question - have you ever heard of two gay men, who are both NOT infected with the HIV virus, contracting AIDS due to having anal sex? No? - There's your answer.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Is this number greater or less than the average for all humans?

This might be a long shot, but I'd say it's about the same.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

If the number is greater, than how can this not be a major point of study in the transmission of HIV?

Because that type of sex isn't the only (and from what I've read, not even the primary) way of contracting the HIV virus?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The gay lobby has tried SO hard to keep this from being a "gay" disease...

Rightfully so, - it's not. Once again, the disease doesn't care.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

...the percentage of straight people getting AIDS in non third-world countries is much lower than that of homosexuals.

And here, again, you have the answer. In third world coutries the AIDS rate is actually higher among heterosexuals, than among gays.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It wouldn't be the first time that research into the truth of things has been subverted due to politics.

LOOOL. It's a conspiraaaaaacyyyyyy. Bwahahhaahaaaaa.

Rest assured. There is a lot of research going into this all over the world...

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

How is it any different from the Westermarck Effect? How can you call one nature and the other nurture?

Disinterest in, and distaste for, sex with siblings is not the same as being intolerant towards people who have sex with siblings. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. I suspect that the taboos against incest and homosexuality are a result of an instinctual, fearful, intolerance that humans have for behavior with which they cannot empathize. This can cause people to be intolerant towards incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, masochism, uncommon religious beliefs, tree sex or even some "perversion" that no one has even thought of yet. I don't think humans evolved to be intolerant towards incest specifically.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Kin selection

Why then does the taboo extend so far out of the family circle?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say they were the same, or related in any way. Just that the evidence for them is the same. You have Mr Westermarck observe that sexual disinterest towards siblings is universal and he says that means it's inherent. Then you have Mr Skeleton observe that intolerance of those who break the above pattern is universal, but he can't say it's inherent. Why?

Off topic (slightly): why doesn't the very existence of those people who break the pattern of the Westermarck Effect invalidate the theory of the Westermarck Effect?

For the second part: if all your neighbors are family members, there is no difference to you between intolerance of family members who misbehave and intolerance of neighbors who misbehave. In an environment where you are surrounded by your kin, "neighbor selection" is evolutionarily equivalent to kin selection (it just hasn't been named by us yet). The same reason the (alleged) Westermarck Effect applies to one's feelings about step-siblings as well as it does to biological siblings; based on prehistoric selective pressures, there was no need to distinguish between them.

Or in terms of evolutionary indifference, you're asking why impulse B would be selected for over impluse A when A is more precise (exclusive?) than B. But B performs the task adequately, and there's no reason to assume that A ever arose as an option to compete with B. Evolution doesn't select the best option, just the best one that has come along so far.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Nor can you try to oversimplify the impact AIDS has on the rest of the population other than just those who have it.

How can the bigotry against homosexuals be caused by AIDS if the bigotry existed long before AIDS did?

Because it's apparent that the two classes are doing something differently.

Are you trying to argue an inherent trait of homosexuality, or are you trying to find some way to make homosexuality wrong? Becausee if it's about the nature of homosexuality, by definition you must include whatever ways different classes are doing it.

Keep repeating it. It's meaningless to your argument

Funny. It is my argument. Here's the topic:

"I fail to see how you can accept one <homosexuality> and reject the other <incest>."

And the answer:

There are two ways. Causality and responsibility. Causality, homosexuality by its nature doesn't cause disease. Incest does (by way of inbreeding). Responsibility, the non-causal health risks currently associated with homosexuality are applied to the risk-taker, while the health risks associated with incest are applied to an innocent 3rd party.

The fact remains that If you engage in homosexual intercourse you are taking a much larger statistical risk (to a greater or lesser degree depending on where you are located) of dying because of what you are doing than if you are heterosexual.

If society is worried about AIDS, society tries to cure AIDS. It doesn't make sense to prevent an otherwise harmless lifestyle just because of a correlation. Otherwise heterosexual sex would also be banned in favor of some kind of filtered sperm bank a la Demolition Man, not to mention you should be championing anti-semitism for the purpose of preventing Tay Sachs disease, and denouncing the freedom of black people to breed because they have a higher rate of sickle cell anemia.

Your case is all bigotry and no logic.

I think it's illogical to assume or theorize that human's normal distaste for same sex attraction for themselves is brought about via nurture but their distaste for sex with close relations is not.

I never said homophobia was not instinctual. The quality of being instinctual does not make something right. That's what the whole "civilization" concept was about, using reason to overcome the injustices of our animal nature.

There are logical differences which make incest a (slightly) more rational taboo than homosexuality. In the name of justice, one day the incest taboo may be overcome, especially in cases with birth control, and hopefully when that day comes it will also be feasible to correct any genetic problems that result from the offspring that inevitably manage to slip past.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Sorry, I didn't mean to say they were the same, or related in any way. Just that the evidence for them is the same. You have Mr Westermarck observe that sexual disinterest towards siblings is universal and he says that means it's inherent. Then you have Mr Skeleton observe that intolerance of those who break the above pattern is universal, but he can't say it's inherent. Why?

Westermarck's observation is readily explicable by the theory of evolution; yours is not. We see the equivilent of the Westermarck Effect in all sorts of animals as well. Since the anti-inbreeding extinct is so common in animals it is very plausibly that this exists in humans as well.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Off topic (slightly): why doesn't the very existence of those people who break the pattern of the Westermarck Effect invalidate the theory of the Westermarck Effect?

I can think of numerous possible explanations for the exceptions to the Westermarck Effect. It could have to do with heterozygote superiority. Maybe it is because our personal development now occurs in an environment that differs in important ways from the environments of our evolution. Some exceptions are definitely the result of political and pragmatic considerations overriding our instincts. Interfamily marriages sometimes occured to keep money and political influence within the family.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

For the second part: if all your neighbors are family members, there is no difference to you between intolerance of family members who misbehave and intolerance of neighbors who misbehave. In an environment where you are surrounded by your kin, "neighbor selection" is evolutionarily equivalent to kin selection (it just hasn't been named by us yet). The same reason the (alleged) Westermarck Effect applies to one's feelings about step-siblings as well as it does to biological siblings; based on prehistoric selective pressures, there was no need to distinguish between them.

I considered this idea before. It doesn't quite work. The most common estimate of group size for paleolithic hominids ranges from about 20-70 members. As in chimpanzees, it is likely that many species were dynamic in composition. Migration into and out of groups was probably common. Most non-immediate family member were of negligible relatedness. If this was true then "neighbor selection" could not happen. As you know, "neighbor selection" is really only possible in small family groups. Since this is true the concept of "neighbor selection" is redundant and misleading since we already have the term "kin selection".

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Or in terms of evolutionary indifference, you're asking why impulse B would be selected for over impluse A when A is more precise (exclusive?) than B. But B performs the task adequately, and there's no reason to assume that A ever arose as an option to compete with B. Evolution doesn't select the best option, just the best one that has come along so far.

This is true. Of course I'm still not convinced. I have a few reasons for this. First, the task is already handled by the mechanisms behind the Westermarck Effect. Second, my explanation for the intolerance towards incest, homosexuality and all other unusual activities is more parsimonious. Third, the costs associated with the intolerance weaken the already questionable selective value of such an instinct. This is certainly an interesting debate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

As you know, "neighbor selection" is really only possible in small family groups.

No I don't know that. Why would that be true, and how is 20 not small enough?

Since this is true the concept of "neighbor selection" is redundant and misleading since we already have the term "kin selection".

No, what you mean is the (alleged) phenomenon of "neighbor selection" is redundant, not the term. Evolution is full of redundant mechanisms.

I should point out that I don't mean "neighbor selection" to be as strong as kin selection; I don't imagine any primate would sacrifice his own life for a mere neighbor, for example. Just that he would have an advantage from preventing his neighbor from unnecessarily risking the health of himself or another (unrelated) group member.

This is true. Of course I'm still not convinced. I have a few reasons for this. First, the task is already handled by the mechanisms behind the Westermarck Effect. Second, my explanation for the intolerance towards incest, homosexuality and all other unusual activities is more parsimonious.

Ok, but I have a few reasons too. First, is it better or worse for an individual if his group-mates have a higher incidence of genetic deformities? I say worse. A stronger group overall is advantageous for each of its members. Second, is it better or worse for an individual if he can exert social pressure on his peers? I say better. It gives him a higher social standing and makes him a happier primate (aside: have you ever heard Robert Sapolsky speak?). Third, this is basically nothing but a subset of altruism. Do you think humans (and all primates for that matter) have some innate tendencies toward altruism? I think they do. If they evolved altruism then I don't see why they couldn't evolve this by the same pressures (though I concede I already stepped on this mine once this week)

Third, the costs associated with the intolerance weaken the already questionable selective value of such an instinct.

What are the costs?

This is certainly an interesting debate.

agree

[aberdeenwriter]

Sorry. Too old for me.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Daddy's lil Cumslut(taby

Hi my name is Tabitha but I go by Taby cause I hate the name Tabitha, Im 20 years old I be 21 on March 15th cant wait woooohoooo! I live in Exeter PA. I'm a white female.....

I emailed you at that address, but my email was returned.

I'd really like to view your webcam - so email me back at [email protected]

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I emailed you at that address, but my email was returned.

I'd really like to view your webcam - so email me back at [email protected]

HA!

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No I don't know that. Why would that be true, and how is 20 not small enough?

No, what you mean is the (alleged) phenomenon of "neighbor selection" is redundant, not the term. Evolution is full of redundant mechanisms.

I should point out that I don't mean "neighbor selection" to be as strong as kin selection; I don't imagine any primate would sacrifice his own life for a mere neighbor, for example. Just that he would have an advantage from preventing his neighbor from unnecessarily risking the health of himself or another (unrelated) group member.

This wouldn't be related to kin selection at all. Kin selection works when a trait raises its bearer's inclusive fitness at some expensive to its direct fitness. Perhaps reciprocal altruism can better explain this "neighbor selection" idea. It seems subtly different than this. I think I understand what you are saying though.

In your previous post you seem to have claimed that "neighbor selection" is a nonadapative side-effect of kin selection? Do you believe that kin selection led to the development of the incest taboo, but since it lacks specificity, neighbors also become targets of the taboo? This seems plausible to me. Let's run the numbers just to be sure. Here's Hamilton's Rule:

Br - C > 0

For those who don't know, "B" is the benefit to the recipient of altruistic behavior, "r" is the coefficient of relatedness and "C" is the cost of the altruistic act. "B" and "C" are measured in terms of surviving offspring. If this inequality holds true then we would expect genes promoting altruism to be favored by natural selection. Let's plug in some numbers and see what happens. The group size of early man was thought to generally range from 20-70 individuals. I don't have data on the average group size and the average family size. Let's assume 40 for the average group size and 4 for the average number of first degree relatives that occur in a single group at any one time. I chose 4 despite the high birthrate because of the high degree of infant and child mortality and the probable high male migration rate. Let's say there are an additional 8 second degree relatives and 16 third degree relatives in the average group. This brings our average coefficient of relatedness to:

r=((4*0.5) + (8*0.25) + (16*0.125))/40

Which makes r=0.15. I divided by 40 because the taboo doesn't discriminate between kin and nonkin. Lets assume that the average incestual couple has the equivalent of 0.35 less children than the average nonincestual couple. When I came up with this number I tried to take into account the fact that some incestual relationships are more dangerous than others and that much of the fitness decrease will be a result of inbreeding depression and not necessarily a large difference in the total number of children. This also assumes that the incest taboo works 100% of the time and that the incestuous couples are faithful and monogamous. This makes B=0.35.

I agree that the cost is probably pretty low. For the taboo to work, an individual interested in incest usually needs only to know that people will look down upon his behavior. This knowledge can be easily spread when he witnesses someone saying bad things about incest or people who partake in it. As far as I can see the costs include spending the time to talk about incest, potential fights or soured relations that occur over discovered incest, and the developmental cost of the trait. Let's say that it is 0.1 per instance of incestual relationship that is prevented. This gives C=0.1. When inserted into Hamilton's equation we get:

0.35(0.15)-0.1 > 0

-0.0475 > 0

Given my assumptions, kin selection cannot be the source of the incest taboo. Of course my assumptions might be way off. Feel free to fill in your own numbers. Other plausable number do give a slight positive value. The number is still pretty low and I suspect that it would take quite a long time for the incest taboo instinct to spread to the point it is at today. Also take into account that the Westermarck Effect probably keeps the incidence of incest pretty low in most populations. This would further lower the selective pressure on an instinct for an incest taboo.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Ok, but I have a few reasons too. First, is it better or worse for an individual if his group-mates have a higher incidence of genetic deformities? I say worse. A stronger group overall is advantageous for each of its members. Second, is it better or worse for an individual if he can exert social pressure on his peers? I say better. It gives him a higher social standing and makes him a happier primate (aside: have you ever heard Robert Sapolsky speak?). Third, this is basically nothing but a subset of altruism. Do you think humans (and all primates for that matter) have some innate tendencies toward altruism? I think they do. If they evolved altruism then I don't see why they couldn't evolve this by the same pressures (though I concede I already stepped on this mine once this week)

Humans are fairly altruistic animals. I think reciprocal altruism and culture explain this quite nicely. It seems a little far fetched that intolerance would be included in a system of reciprocal altruism. Most people don't seem to appreciate intolerance towards their behavior.

Having a stronger group might have been an advantage. It may also have been a disadvantage. I don't know how important group strength was to our prehistoric ancestors. I wouldn't be surpised at all if it was vitally important.

And I think Robert Sapolsky is very entertaining.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Scientist

Given my assumptions, kin selection cannot be the source of the incest taboo. Of course my assumptions might be way off. Feel free to fill in your own numbers. Other plausable number do give a slight positive value. The number is still pretty low and I suspect that it would take quite a long time for the incest taboo instinct to spread to the point it is at today. Also take into account that the Westermarck Effect probably keeps the incidence of incest pretty low in most populations. This would further lower the selective pressure on an instinct for an incest taboo.

I wasn't implying that the incest taboo was an inevitable development, just that I suspect it happens to be evolutionarily based. In that light, a very slight quantitative advantage is exactly what I would expect for it. Also, I do think your 0.1 is very high. For one thing I don't consider conversation a cost at all, because if you look around at modern apes they have lots of time for conversation, and to imply that conversation of one topic would take valuable time away from other topics is frankly laughable. Also, what you point out about the WE keeping incidence low for the need to enforce the taboo also keeps the cost low for exercising the taboo. In short, I can't see the act of enforcing a taboo ever negatively impacting the reproductive capacity of the enforcer. I'd give it a 0.01, just for costs I can't foresee.

Humans are fairly altruistic animals. I think reciprocal altruism and culture explain this quite nicely. It seems a little far fetched that intolerance would be included in a system of reciprocal altruism. Most people don't seem to appreciate intolerance towards their behavior.

If altruism can have "feel-good" implementations, why not "feel-bad" ones? I agree the latter would be less common, because they would be more indirectly beneficial, but I'm not ready to rule them out yet. From an objective viewpoint, doesn't it seem rather closed minded to declare that altruism can never act through negative emotions, just because it is perceived as fundamentally positive? Evolution has no ideas of positive and negative after all.