Quote:
Originally Posted by pj67coll
Seems a huge leap of faith inherent in that argument. Given the imposibility of determining homovshetero amongst an extinct species I see now way for a meaningful comparrison to be made. Also the assumption that traditional societies have no homo component might be countered by the other thread about peadophilia in Afghanistan.
- Peter.
|
I'm not saying traditional societies don't have it. I'm saying conformity is most useful in those kinds of societies so nonconformity wouldn't be that important to survival.
I also don't think that comparion with Neanderthals is really possible. I'm really just speculating about the evolutionary benefits of conformity/nonconformity and ways in which that might play out in human biology. As a general rule, it seems that conformity is the best survival route, but complete conformity would be a drawback. So what biological mechanisms might play into this tension between conformity/noncnformity in our evolutionary history. it's not as if it's likely that non-conformity could exist as a certain percentage of humans surviving on h2so4 as opposed to h20 is possible. So where could tendencies to non-conformity to placed in human biology? Sexuality is a prettty good place. Homosexuality because it inhibits reproduction would be highly unlikely to end up as the majority so there would be a tendency to keep conformists as the majority. But if there is a biological mechanism for generating homosexuality, you would have a portion of the population that felt quite different than the majority, inducing a kind of forced non-conformity that might in the long term enhance adaptability.