Scientist (zoologist) calls gay people 'pinnacle of evolution'

Scientist (zoologist) calls gay people 'pinnacle of evolution'
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/08/15/3

At a time when religious and conservative right-wing groups are attempting to dismiss homosexuality as "unnatural," a leading zoologist has said gay people could be seen as the "pinnacle of evolution."

Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival, Clive Bromhall said that humankind's evolution has resulted in our present state of "infantilism," in which we break the primate mold by being playful, creative and childlike right into adulthood.

Here's my two cents' worth:

What is the definition of "evolution" - and is it always a good or bad thing (for the individual) to be "more" evolved? And where does this "pinnacle of evolution" fit into the yin and yang of evolution: is being gay a natural variation or a natural selection? Is it good for the individual or good for the species - or both? Does evolution have a pinnacle - or is it just a random rush in a million directions, may the best mutations multiply?

Another observation from zoology & ethology by Italian ethnobotanist Giorgio Samorini shows that some individuals of many species enjoy doing drugs, such as caribou who love a certain psychedelic mushroom, cats who love catnip, or certain people we know. Such "outliers" (natural variations) in a species are probably "adaptive" at the species level, but that doesn't mean the outlying individuals aren't easy targets for all kinds of predators (be they wolves or Taliban or g-men or reporters). And the labels "moral" or "immoral" seem to be pretty hard to apply to such behavior - at least when animals do it.

Animals and Psychedelics:
The Natural World and the Instinct to Alter Consciousness
by Giorgio Samorini
http://www.innertraditions.com/titles/anipsy.html

Rejecting the Western cultural assumption that using drugs is a negative action or the result of an illness, Samorini opens our eyes to the possibility that beings who consume psychedelics - whether humans or animals - contribute to the evolution of their species by creating entirely new patterns of behavior that eventually will be adopted by other members of that species. The author's fascinating accounts of mushroom-loving reindeer, intoxicated birds, and drunken elephants ensure that readers will never view the animal world in quite the same way again.

Being gay might also be good for the species somehow but not good for the individual. In the book on animals who do psychedelics, the minority animals do 'expand the behavioral repertoire, thus influencing evolution' as one commentator points out, but then again the wolves know enough to target the trippin' caribou. Gays don't have to personally live longer or better lives to still help a species to adapt to its niche. Take the French poets Verlaine and Rimbaud - certainly gay, and certainly artistic. At the end of their tempestuous relationship, Verlaine shot Rimbaud in the hand. And Rimbaud wasn't so crazy about poetry all his life - as a young man, he renouced writing and joined the Army. Who can say whether being gay was such a great evolutionary advantage for them. But maybe their existence was an advantage for the rest of the species. Anyways, for an evolutionary biologist to describe the behavior of some individuals within a species as more "evolved" might not be quite professional if the biologist fails to specify just what is meant by "the pinnacle of evolution". Homosexuals as being more artistic or childlike or creative - maybe, maybe not, depends on who you count as "homosexual". Sure, the high-profile hairdressers and stylists are - but what about the low-profile guys that hang out at rest-stop bathrooms? What about the guys who are in the closet in professional sports? Are we talking gay as in ABC's "Will and Grace" or gay as in HBO's "Oz"?

Since the zoologist commenting on gays in this case mentions the prolonged infantilism of our fellow primates as an example of being "more evolved", I guess he is referring to the evolutionary concept of "neoteny" or "extended immaturity" observed in humans: it takes us a long time to mature, relative to other animals, and it is conjectured that this lengthy maturation process, while fraught with perils, also provides some pretty important benefits, such as giving the older generation so much more time to impart a useful (adaptive) culture to the younger.

An interesting point missing from this article is the simple fact that many animal species have individuals (both male and female) who show "gay" behavior. (This important zoological fact isn't covered much the commercial press, except the excellent compilation "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemilh, PhD, available at Amazon.)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031225377X/qid=1061686940/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-4433025-0928949
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.

The Bagemihl book "Biological Exuberance" is replete with examples of animal homosexuality, such as photos of fellating orangutans and two-parent lesbian grizzlie-bear families, and necking giraffes. But the gay behavior isn't just limited to primates and "higher" mammals - there's plenty of beetles and butterflies that carry on just like homo sapiens homos do. The information's been published for centuries - for example, there is a Victorian-era essay in the copious footnotes whose title mentions the "immorality" of butterflies.

From the jacket blurb:
"Male gorillas courting and copulating with each other... grizzly bear families with two mothers... same-sex pairs of flamingos... Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and other animals worldwide. 'Biological Exuberance' is the first comprehensive account of the subject, brining together accurate, accessible and nonsensationalized information.

Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex and co-parenting - even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

Part 1, 'A Polysexual, Polygendered World,' begins with a survey of homosexuality, transgender and nonreproductive heterosexuality in animals and then delves into the broader implications of these findings, including a valuable perspective on human diversity. Bagemihl also examines the hidden assumptions behind the way biologists look at natural systems and suggests a fresh perspective based on the synthesis of contemporary scientific insights with traditional knowledge from indigenous cultures.

Part 2, 'A Wondrous Bestiary,' profiles more than 190 species in which scientific observers have noticed homosexual or transgender behavior. Each profile is a verbal and visual 'snapshot' of one or more closely related bird or mammal species, containing all the documentation required to support the author's often controversial conclusions.

Lavishly illustrated {with both line drawings and photos} and meticulously researched {with loads of footnotes}, filled with fascinating facts and astonishing descriptions of animal behavior, 'Biological Exuberance' is a landmark book that will change forever how we look at nature."

When a behavior is so widespread among so may species, it makes sense for an evolutionary biologist to ask: "What is so adaptive about homosexuality that makes it crop up across so many species?"

As {Western} ethologists and anthropologists are recently coming to {re-}discover, homosexuality in any species, human or non-human, whether lifelong, phased or occasional, is certainly capable of providing some benefits to an individual or a species. There will be for example those pairs of male ducks, sometimes the strongest in the flock, who spend all their time in each other's company, doing the courtship dance, settling down together in a nest, looking like they're destined to waste all their wonderful genes - until a determined female duck will set her eyes on one of them (just one of them, ducks can tell each other apart, and they mate for life, so they seem to be pretty picky about who they mate with). She goes out of her way to cross paths with her favorite until she may manage to become pregnant by him. Then, without the benefit of a DNA test on Jerry Springer, the THREE-parent family will settle into the nest and raise Junior. It remains for science to decide whether being brought up by Mom and Dad and Dad's boyfriend confers evolutionary advantages to Junior. I do hear that real estate is esteemed and ranked by ducks, and you can be sure this three-parent family has one of the choicer spots on the pond. I would imagine the a grizzly with two mothers might be better off than a grizzly with just one - them mothers fight pretty nasty when one of their young is in danger.

It would be interesting to compile a longer, broader history of human homosexuality than the ones we usually see - one that goes beyond monotheism and contemporary science - to see if there are any examples of homosexuality conferring evolutionary advantages to human individuals or societies. This field of study, being largely unexplored up until now for ideological reasons, could be very rich. And the advantages of homosexuality for an individual, a society, a species could be very diverse indeed.

My take is: take this zoologist saying that gays are the 'pinnacle' with a grain of salt. Science is always muzzled by ideology, so the blind spots of our science should be pretty predictable: the West has been cranking out a lot of misguided books about sex, race and money for a long time now. Homosexuality is probably adaptive in some way - this we can argue simply from the fact that it is spread so wide and deep in the animal kingdom in so many successful species. Our science has only really written one popular book so far on this remarkable phenomenon (Bagemihl's) - while our courts just a month ago determined that it was "legal" to be gay and our society debates whether gays should be "allowed" to "marry" and our television has discovered the novelty of gay guys giving straight guys tips on grooming and dating. There's probably a whole lot more looking and thinking and talking we've got to do before we can make authoritative pronouncements on homosexuality and whether it represents a 'pinnacle' of any kind.

Outside the box thinking, interesting point about morality and animals, neat points about drugs inducing variant creative actions beneficial to the species as a whole (see music 1960's). Really nice to read smart people.

You should post this on the Freeper site and watch them give birth to something. You might actually be able to hear someone stroke out online.

This could be a good one. I wonder how a right-winger would handle the fact that so many other species of animals do drugs and have gay sex?

Might make a few of them up and say "Wow! I coulda had a V-8!" or at least join the Log Cabin Republicans.

If you post it here you will be found out and bounced.:shrug:

"Being gay might also be good for the species somehow but not good for the individual. In the book on animals who do psychedelics, the minority animals do 'expand the behavioral repertoire, thus influencing evolution' as one commentator points out, but then again the wolves know enough to target the trippin' caribou."


more...
http://bbs.globalfreepress.com/coppermine

that should be our RALLYING CRY... the right will go whacko :evilgrin:

great read thanks :toast:

peace

Um, sorry ol' Pope ol' pal, but no it doesn't. Leastways there seems to be a heck of a lot of it in nature for something agin Nacherl Law.

So if you don't have that excuse for hating gays, and all you've really got is a couple of lines in Leviticus plus some fairly ambiguous stuff (once contextualized) in St Paul, where's that leave you?

It leaves you defending a taboo, an attitude grounded in atavistic feelings of ritual uncleanness that have nothing to do with the essentially ethical strictures propounded by Jesus of Nazareth. It's all about stoning the unclean, and that's all it is. And you can't get away with dressing it up in some kind of pseudo-biological, pseudo-scientific post-aristotelian dreck about natural law.

...who lived a straight (lie) life for 15 years I can honestly say that being with a man was the most unnatural thing to me. I didn't find it pleasurable at all. But being with a woman is one of the most natural things I have ever experienced. No government or right wing religious group in this world can tell me that the love I share with my partner is wrong. Because love is never wrong.

And if they are looking at the animal kingdom well homosexuality runs rampat in the animal kingdom, do the religious groups and governments stop them?

As a man who always new I was different as a child, and then knew I was a homosexual after puberty, but who tried living the lie of heterosexuality for nearly 40 years (yeah, THAT worked out real well) I too am always thankful to know of new resources dealing with sexual preference as a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Any suggestions for other good reading on the topic.

Again, thanks.

thank you so much for posting this; it's such a relief to read something germane and devoid of spin.

A few points:

I would substite 'pinacle' for 'key' to evolution.

When for most of human history people lived not more than 45 years,
they had time to marry (about 15 or 16) breed and live long enough
to see their children do the same, more or less.

Who then is left by nature, not tied to a field, child or bow who can do all the rest? I say 'gay' is natures term for evolutionary agent.

I have serious doubts that one can point to "infantalism" as an evolutionary step. Asian women display this characteristic to an
alarming degree today.

See--Hollowing out Chinese culture on Taiwan
http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20010827/20010827o2.html
On hello kitty dolls--"Besides contributing to a diagnosable case of regressive infantilism among the nation's youth, especially in females, the ubiquity of the mouthless feline's venerated visage nevertheless speaks volumes about the relative importance of "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" cultural symbols, at least in the estimation of today's young people.

http://taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/07/10/2003058818
Infantilism comes in many guises: the belief that we have guardian angels, the idea that our laptop loves us, the matey messages from Internet sellers, the mission statements of banks, the reality TV shows, the cups with baby-bottle nozzles, the bogus promises of skinny lattes and bran muffins, and phone-in and interactive programs, to list just an obvious few. Not so obviously childish are the political messages. Politicians have understood that we live in a new romantic age because we, the public, have come to believe that the only unit of currency that can be trusted is the self.