keith@telesoft.UUCP (Keith Shillington @prodigal) (09/18/86)
<eat me, you low down line eater you....> In <989@druhi.UUCP> Karen M. writes: > Questions like "Why hasn't homosexuality bred itself out of the human > race by now?" bother me. Good. I say that there is a great deal masked behind such a question. THAT bothers me. I wouldn't mind a question like: "Being as we have now proven beyond a doubt that homosexuality is a genetic trait, why hasn't it been selected out? What is the nature of this trait that causes its persistence?" To me, this is a somewhat more scientific investigative question, given some condition, why does this condition prevail. (Calm down folks, I know that the original premise is steer manure....) > Has anyone considered that it is not necessary for 100% of humans to > breed? That it is adequate for the mechanisms of sexual orientation > and identity to "only be 90% effective" for the human race to survive? Gads! Given the population situation it's a durned good thing that humans are slowing down in breeding. I had this flash the other day of what the world would look like at "stability". Imagine for a moment, that the population stops growing, and we do whatever it takes to manage this garden we are living in..... (sigh, it is possible, and I get stuck in the notion of 'probable'....) 90%! Given the historical nature of families to be in the 3-7 children domain, maybe only 50% of the population should be breeding! > > Personally, I would like to believe that Nature prefers a little > "random variation" in her universe. :-) You damn her with faint praise. Just think how boring life would be if snowflakes were all the same. Nature is about infinite variety to an extent not comprehensible by a mere human mind. ------------------------------------------------------ "... and me with a brain the size of a planet ..." Marvin -- Keith Allan Shillington telesoft!keith@UCSD.ARPA 619/457-2700x388.ATT {ucbvax!sdcsvax,celerity,bang}!telesoft!keith.UUCP