[Soapbox] Being "naturally" gay

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sold on the absence of gayness in preagricultural societies, but still, I think I might have to add that to my resume. Farmers: making the world a queerer place since two triple aught bee see! Or was it four? Brainfarting atm.

 

[Domen]

I'm not sold on the absence of gayness in preagricultural societies

Well, maybe there was some:

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[Narz]

Interesting stuff Domen.

Curious to see how the research evolves.

The sad thing about studying hunter-gatherer 'aboriginal' societies is there are so few of them (and getting fewer all the time).

 

[Agent327]

There is a new study on genetics of homosexuality and masturbation by Barry & Bonnie Hewlett:

http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/PDF/sex_paper_final_10-2010.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...bation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

They found out that homosexuality does not occur in hunter-gatherer populations, such as the Aka and the Ngandu.

Among the Aka and the Ngandu (both from Central Africa) not only homosexuality does not exist, but also masturbation:

Their conclusion was that homosexuality and masturbation might be evolutionary responses to overpopulation.

An absurd conclusion. We know homosexuality exists in non-human species, and masturbation can be observed with chimpansees. Perhaps they can do a better job next time. (By the way, would you discuss homosexuality or masturbation with strangers?)

 

[Borachio]

You don't think that chimpanzees might experience overpopulation pressures within a certain locality?

I agree it's a rather dubious speculation, though. Especially as they seem to claim that the Aka don't know about either. I don't see why chimpanzees would experience overpopulation while the Aka wouldn't.

 

[Agent327]

Their conclusion simply doesn't follow from their findings. First, they weren't even researching population pressure. Second, it's not a conclusion, but a hypothesis - and one not based on any facts they found. A conclusion is something which logically follows from what you know. Speculation is what you do when not knowing that answer and make one up. All they found was that to their knowledge (a rather important caveat) homosexuality nor masturbation was known to the Aka and Ngandu. They are making some rather basic assumptions which they don't explicitly mention (possibly because they don't even ralize they are making such assumptions). They then jump to a 'conclusion' not warranted by their own research. The fact that homosexuality and masturbation are known phenomena does not imply each and every individual does it (or knows about it). All they actually found was that the people interviewed either didn't know these phenomena - or didn't want to admit they did. That's a rather more modest conclusion than the one presented.

 

[Borachio]

I think you're right.

I agree with everything you've written there.

Anthropologists often fail to take account of the fact that people will often tell them lies, or be less than forthcoming, about their private lives. Didn't Mead come a big cropper in the South Seas?

 

[Leifmk]

Masturbation is basically rediscovered by everyone who has arms long enough to reach their genitals, so I find these claims of it being "unknown" to a whole culture rather... dubious.

 

[bhavv]

Its not that homosexuality and masturbation don't exist within hunter gatherer societies, its more that they repress their sexual urges to conform as such societies are rarely tolerant of those practices.

 

[warpus]

"Homosexuality.. what's that? .. . when you what? No.. no.. nobody here does this here. Nope.. *cough*"

 

[Traitorfish]

Anthropologists often fail to take account of the fact that people will often tell them lies, or be less than forthcoming, about their private lives.

I've heard one anthropologist say that half their job is finding out what the rules are supposed to be, and the other half is to find out the circumstances under which they are bent, broken or just conveniently forgotten.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Interesting stuff Domen.

Yeah I agree. Never heard that stuff before, it makes a certain intuitive sense. But yes no worries, I take it with a lot of salt and doubt. Still, some interesting ideas.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

You don't think that chimpanzees might experience overpopulation pressures within a certain locality?

I agree it's a rather dubious speculation, though. Especially as they seem to claim that the Aka don't know about either. I don't see why chimpanzees would experience overpopulation while the Aka wouldn't.

It doesn't matter if they do, the conclusion that these things only occur as an evolutionary response to anything is nonsense because that isn't how evolution works. New traits do not appear in individuals that are already grown, the genes for homosexuality and/or frequent masturbation would have to already exist in the population in order for them to be selected for, so the notion that they just don't exist at all in groups that aren't overpopulated but then somehow appear as if on cue once overpopulation becomes an issue is ridiculous.

 

[Domen]

the genes for homosexuality and/or frequent masturbation would have to already exist in the population in order for them to be selected for, so the notion that they just don't exist at all in groups that aren't overpopulated but then somehow appear as if on cue once overpopulation becomes an issue is ridiculous.

Uhm... Have you ever heard about a thing called "mutations" ???

that they just don't exist at all in groups that aren't overpopulated but then somehow appear as if on cue once overpopulation becomes an issue

Who claimed this?

It is enough that this mutation appeared independently just a few times around the world, and then spread.

Nobody claims that it appears all the time when only some overpopulation occurs.

Teach the Aka / Ngandu how to farm and they might still not develop this mutation for the next 500 years.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Uhm... Have you ever heard about a thing called "mutations" ???

Have you? In order to be selected for evolutionarily, mutations have to occur at the basic genetic level, typically only possible before a person is ever born. When mutations happen to already grown individuals, we call them "tumors".

Who claimed this?

It is enough that this mutation appeared independently just a few times around the world, and then spread.

Nobody claims that it appears all the time when only some overpopulation occurs.

Teach the Aka / Ngandu how to farm and they might still not develop this mutation for the next 500 years.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, because your argument seems incoherent. The hypothesis is that homosexuality genes spread due to overpopulation, but if anything, inheritance implies the opposite, that in cases of overpopulation it would be easier for homosexuals to escape the social pressure to breed, leading to a decrease in the frequency of the genes. What mechanism exists that would make homosexuals more likely to breed when conditions are overpopulated, instead of less likely?

 

[Domen]

Who says that mutations which caused homosexualism appeared in already grown individuals ???

 

[Domen]

We know homosexuality exists in non-human species, and masturbation can be observed with chimpansees

Nobody observed masturbation among wild chimpanzees. And homosexuality was observed only among zoo animals.

Do you have sources that they also observed such behaviour among wild animals in their natural environment?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Who says that mutations which caused homosexualism appeared in already grown individuals ???

It's the only thing that allows the original thing you linked to to even be remotely feasible. Again, if anything, the way evolution works makes the opposite of their conclusion more likely. If homosexuality is a trait that is determined genetically from birth, then it is FAR more likely for those genes to spread in underpopulated situations, because there will be far more societal pressure to produce offspring. In overpopulated situations, those genes would be LESS likely to spread, because there will not be as much societal pressure for gay people to have babies. The only way that the conclusion that "homosexual genes are an evolutionary response to overpopulation" makes ANY kind of sense is if we assume that the genes crop up later in life, after the individual has been exposed to societal pressures. If those genes are there from birth than we should see precisely the opposite effect.

 

[Domen]

It's the only thing that allows the original thing you linked to to even be remotely feasible

Nope. Why do you even think so ???

If homosexuality is a trait that is determined genetically from birth, then it is FAR more likely for those genes to spread in underpopulated situations, because there will be far more societal pressure to produce offspring. In overpopulated situations, those genes would be LESS likely to spread, because there will not be as much societal pressure for gay people to have babies.

These are some very good points, actually!

Except that not always underpopulated societies have far more societal pressure to produce offspring.

============================

Hunter-gatherer societies are, by the way, not underpopulated. They often have food shortages, and therefore are overpopulated.

Because overpopulation / underpopulation is not an objective measure. It is only relative to food production capacity.

In France between 1913 and 2013 crops of wheat per one hectare increased from 1,6 tons to 7,2 tons, and amount of milk produced on average per each cow increased 4 times, while population increased from 41 million to 65 million. So France is now much less overpopulated than it was in 1913.