Re: New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- From: "TheRhineFrontier@xxxxxxx" <TheRhineFrontier@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Feb 2007 19:08:09 -0800
On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Anonymus" <no_spam@spam> wrote:
There has been lots of speculation about why so many humans are homosexuals.
It would seem that a gene that makes someone homosexual would not have great
chance of being passed down to further generations because homosexual sex
does not result in offspring. And so one might assume homosexuality would
die out, yet it is very common.
One theory, "the sterile worker theory", suggests that since homosexuals don't
have children they have more time to help their siblings, nieces and
nephews. This help could result in the siblings, nieces and nephews having
more children. (Most obviously, but importantly not limited to, if the
homosexual saves the life of the sibling, niece or nephew.) Since the
siblings, nieces and nephews share a lot of genes with the homosexual, the
homosexual is thus helping copies of his own genes survive.
The child of a person have 1/2 of the genes of that person.
The grandchild of a person have 1/4 of the genes of that person.
The nieces and nephews of a person have1/4 of the genes of that person.
The children of the nieces and nephews of a person have 1/8 of the genes of
that person.
Therefore for the sterile worker theory to be true, the help the homosexual
provides would have to result in his nieces and nephews to have 2 more
children than they would have had, had the homosexual not been a homosexual
for every grandchild the homosexual would have had had he not been a
homosexual. (For instance consider a man is heterosexual and has 2 children,
and each of them has 2 children. He then has 4 grandchildren. Had the man
been homosexual he would have had no children. The help he then provides for
his nieces and nephews would have had to result in them altogether having 8
more children than they would otherwise have had, for the theory to be
right.) Because of this the sterile worker theory is often thought to be
wrong.
Here is a theory that I think is new: It's similar to the sterile worker
theory except that instead of a person having a gene that makes him or her a
homosexual a woman has a gene that makes some of her children homosexuals.
This presumably happens while the child is being built in the womb and
presumably without the women knowing about it. The reason this is (according
to the theory) advantageous for the genes of the woman is that homosexual
will have more time to help his mother, siblings, nieces and nephews,
resulting in the nieces and nephews having more children, and thus the woman
having more great grandchildren.
Why is this new theory more likely than the old sterile worker theory?
Because all the grandchildren of the woman has 1/4 of the genes of that
woman, and all the great grandchildren of the woman has 1/8 of the genes of
that woman. So for the new theory to be true the help the homosexual
provides would have to result in his nieces and nephews to have just one
more child than they would have had, had the homosexual not been a
homosexual for every grandchild the homosexual would have had had he not
been a homosexual. (For instance consider a man is heterosexual and has 2
children, and each of them has 2 children. He then has 4 grandchildren. Had
the man been homosexual he would have had no children. The help he then
provides for his nieces and nephews would have had to result in them
altogether having 4 more children than they would otherwise have had, for
the theory to be right.)
(It is not unheard of that the genes of the mother, rather than the genes of
the individual determines traits of that individual. According to "The
extended phenotype" by Richard Dawkins, in the land snail Partula Suturalis
whether the shell of the snail coils to the right or the left is determined
by genes of the mother of that snail.)
Is it likely that the help of one extra adult can result in such an
advantage? I think yes. One should not consider if it is such a big
advantage today but if it was a big advantage in the Stone Age. Violent
death for children was probably common then, and so how many adults you had
to look out for you were important. Violent deaths for adult where probably
common too, and when your parents died an extra adult to take care of you is
an obvious advantage. It seems not too unlikely that sometimes there would
be times when there is not enough food to feed a tribe. Perhaps then some
children would be chosen to not get any food, so that the others might live.
Or if they are not outright chosen some children might still end up with too
little food and starve to death. Parents are then likely to (literally or
not) fight for their children getting the food. Normally if you had a
sibling, the sibling would then fight for their own children getting the
food instead of your children, but if you had a homosexual sibling they
would fight for your children to get the food. The leader of a tribe is
likely to have several wives and therefore more children. A homosexual would
then not have such a great genetically advantage of becoming the leader of a
tribe. Therefore heterosexual brothers might fight to become the leader of
the tribe, but a homosexual brother might support his heterosexual brother.
Therefore a man with a homosexual brother might have a bigger chance of
becoming the leader of the tribe, than all the men with heterosexual
brothers. I also think woman had more children in the Stone Age, and so
having one homosexual child would have been more beneficial then than now,
because the homosexual would have had more siblings, nieces and nephews to
look after.
If the theory is right then it is not really genetically beneficial to be a
homosexual, just to have a homosexual child. It seems not farfetched then
that there exist genes for fighting off the influence of mother so that one
does not become a homosexual after all. There might have been a genetic arms
race where the mothers over generations tried harder and harder to make the
child homosexual and the children tried harder and harder to become
heterosexual. Bisexuals might be people who are strongly influenced both by
their mother and their own genes. Homophobia might have evolved as a defense
against the mothers influence: the homosexual expresses hatred towards
homosexuals and thereby makes others hate homosexuals and therefore the
homosexual has to have heterosexual sex to stop from being found out. I have
often heard (but not from reliable sources) that homosexuals in the closet
often express very strong dislike for homosexuals, which would fit with
this. But homophobia might be just cultural.
If the theory is right the father of a homosexual child would probably not
benefit from it as much as the mother. This is because the mother might have
children with other men, and so when the homosexual spends his time helping
his half siblings on the mother's side instead of having children of his
own, the father of the homosexual doesn't benefit at all. One might object
that the father might also have children with other women, and that the
homosexual might help these half siblings on the father's side as well.
However on average I think it is more likely that the homosexual would spend
more time helping the half siblings on the mother's side rather than on the
father's side for three reasons: 1. Children are probably more likely to
grow up with their mother than their father. Therefore the homosexual will
grow up with the half siblings on the mother's side. It seems more likely
the homosexual will help children he grew up with. 2. The half siblings on
the father's side might be secret if the father has had an affair, and so
the homosexual would not know he was supposed to help them, or perhaps not
even know they existed at all. 3. It seems more likely that a homosexual
will help a full sibling over a half sibling. But if the half sibling is on
the mother's side the homosexual might think it is a full sibling if the
mother has had an affair.
Because the father of the homosexual does not benefit as strongly as the
mother, the father might try to influence the homosexual into becoming
heterosexual. Perhaps the fathers evolved homophobia as a defense against
their children becoming homosexuals, so that the homosexual knows the father
will become angry unless the homosexual gets into a heterosexual
relationship. But again homophobia might be cultural.
So far I have tried to explain why the mother would cause one of her
children to not have any children, but why should she also cause the child
to want to have sex with member of the child's sex? Why not make the child
have no interest in sex? Or make it sterile? Or make it impotent? I think
there are advantages and disadvantages to all these approaches:
Advantages to making the child sterile:
1. The sterile could have one (or more) partner that could help take care of
the sterile's family.
2. Having sex is supposed to be healthy.
Disadvantages to making the child sterile:
1. Spending time with the partner takes away time from helping the sterile's
family.
2. Spending time helping the partner's family takes time away from helping
the sterile's family.
3. If the sterile is a man the partner might have been unfaithful and have
one or more children that the sterile believes to be his own. Raising these
takes away time from helping the sterile's family.
4. The sterile is a rival to other heterosexuals of the same sex. Might
therefore get killed, hurt or otherwise disadvantaged by the heterosexuals.
5. Can get sexually transmitted diseases.
Advantages to making the child impotent:
1. Dramatically less danger of sexually transmitted diseases.
2. Is not to any large extent a rival to heterosexuals of the same sex.
3. Unlikely to have a partner for very long, and so unlikely to waste time
on the partner, or partner's family.
4. Will not mistake a partner's child as his own.
Disadvantage to making the child impotent:
1. Unlikely to have a ...
read more »
_________________________________________________________________
x no archive
It is not new, but it does make a degree of sense.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- From: Anonymus
- Re: New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- References:
- New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- From: Anonymus
- New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- Prev by Date: Re: Spirit Cave Man
- Next by Date: Re: Article: brain & tools; Well-tooled Primates
- Previous by thread: Re: New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- Next by thread: Re: New (?) theory about the benefit of homosexuality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
