![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
These thoughts are inspired by a post by
weishaupt some time ago (I can't find it now, I'm sorry), the novel Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear, and recent conversations with
lady_babalon.
Imagine, if you will, that what we call "humankind" is made up of (at least) two distinguishable species. Maybe we should call them "stocks" instead of "species" since they can possibly interbreed. Some might suggest we use the word "races," except that the differences between these two stocks are much deeper than the outward racial markers (which are little more than slight fluctuations or variations). In this thought experiment, most humans bear genes primarily from the first stock, while a small minority bear genes descended from the second stock.
Strictly at random, I will suppose that the characteristics which distinguish the members of the second stock include a heightened sense of mutual interconnection, a tendency towards gender ambiguity, a tendency to use sex for purposes of cementing friendships instead of only for reproduction and pair-binding, and heightened curiosity and problem-solving skill. Being a set of characteristics, not every specimen of second stock is going to exhibit all of these characteristics, and some will exhibit others.
What would it be like to belong to either stock? First, for purposes of mating, friendship, and socialization people would be drawn to avoid members of the other stock. People of the second stock would have a heightened urge to mate with compatible cohorts when they encounter one another -- not just from the biological urge to reproduce, but also for social purposes and sense of comfort and security.
People of each stock would view people of the other stock with suspicion, as competitors for scarce resources -- but the power structure would be different between the two stocks. The first stock, being in the majority, and having the upper hand, would oppress and dehumanize the members of the second stock. The first stock would develop myths and legends depicting their suspicion of the second stock -- labelling them "vampires," "nephilim," "freaks," "witches," and so on, using these legends to rationalize the persecution of that which is different and misunderstood. Members of the second stock would develop strong resentments towards the first stock but would be relatively powerless, except in particular instances, to exact any revenge.
So, one question might be, does the second stock have an evolutionary advantage over the first? If not, that would explain their lack of predominance in the human population -- and we would expect their numbers to dwindle.
On the other hand, if the second has evolutionary advantages, there have to be ways to explain the imbalance. There are several possibilities. The first is that the second stock just hasn't had time to come to prominence yet. The second is that there are disadvantages possessed by the members of the second stock that outweigh the advantages -- which would lead us to expect to see the second stock vanish. The conclusion either way is that the presence of the second stock must be a relatively recent evolutionary occurence.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Imagine, if you will, that what we call "humankind" is made up of (at least) two distinguishable species. Maybe we should call them "stocks" instead of "species" since they can possibly interbreed. Some might suggest we use the word "races," except that the differences between these two stocks are much deeper than the outward racial markers (which are little more than slight fluctuations or variations). In this thought experiment, most humans bear genes primarily from the first stock, while a small minority bear genes descended from the second stock.
Strictly at random, I will suppose that the characteristics which distinguish the members of the second stock include a heightened sense of mutual interconnection, a tendency towards gender ambiguity, a tendency to use sex for purposes of cementing friendships instead of only for reproduction and pair-binding, and heightened curiosity and problem-solving skill. Being a set of characteristics, not every specimen of second stock is going to exhibit all of these characteristics, and some will exhibit others.
What would it be like to belong to either stock? First, for purposes of mating, friendship, and socialization people would be drawn to avoid members of the other stock. People of the second stock would have a heightened urge to mate with compatible cohorts when they encounter one another -- not just from the biological urge to reproduce, but also for social purposes and sense of comfort and security.
People of each stock would view people of the other stock with suspicion, as competitors for scarce resources -- but the power structure would be different between the two stocks. The first stock, being in the majority, and having the upper hand, would oppress and dehumanize the members of the second stock. The first stock would develop myths and legends depicting their suspicion of the second stock -- labelling them "vampires," "nephilim," "freaks," "witches," and so on, using these legends to rationalize the persecution of that which is different and misunderstood. Members of the second stock would develop strong resentments towards the first stock but would be relatively powerless, except in particular instances, to exact any revenge.
So, one question might be, does the second stock have an evolutionary advantage over the first? If not, that would explain their lack of predominance in the human population -- and we would expect their numbers to dwindle.
On the other hand, if the second has evolutionary advantages, there have to be ways to explain the imbalance. There are several possibilities. The first is that the second stock just hasn't had time to come to prominence yet. The second is that there are disadvantages possessed by the members of the second stock that outweigh the advantages -- which would lead us to expect to see the second stock vanish. The conclusion either way is that the presence of the second stock must be a relatively recent evolutionary occurence.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 09:05 pm (UTC)Yeah right. I just used Excel to produce 10 random numbers between 1 and 1,000,000,000, and all 10 were "123,456,789".
I hit recalculate 10 times, and the result was the same each time.
I'm now off to buy a lottery ticket!
;p
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:09 am (UTC)It's not the two different kinds of people thing.
It's the, of course they don't get along and try to oppress one another thing, and the eventually the group I'm in will be over the other group thing.
It's stuff like this that is the reason I like many poly individuals a great deal, but can't STAND the 'poly community'.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:17 am (UTC)My primary interest is seeking to understand why the vilification of such people is so extremely vehement, beyond rationality. Here's my thought question -- from the standpoint of evolution, competition for scarce resources would drive one species to suppress another. I'm not sure there's any basis in fact for this at all.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:24 am (UTC)Being in an area with a predominance of polys and not being poly IS annoying. But the main reason that it is annoying is because people push it the way that some monogamists push monogamy out here, and also because there are a lot of people who are not genuinely 'poly' but are sexually opportunistic--and it's really annoying to be a primarily heterosexual monogamous woman and know that it's going to be that much harder to find a mate because a guy who knows he can find another woman just as cute and smart who will let him date other girls and sleep with them, too, will frequently enjoy this situation for quite a long while, whether or not he's poly, and when he can get all the sex he wants, he feels no reason to go without while he's dating me.
But I don't understand the ooh-kill-it-it's-different reaction, and I never ever have.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:28 pm (UTC)I don't think it's competition for scarce resources, as much as it is that simple fear of what is different. What is different could be a predator, or carry a microorganism to which one has no immunity.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:01 am (UTC)Evolution is based on physiological change in response (in the mutations that survive) to the physical enviornment. Social characteristics and behaviors are largely artificial constructs in response to the enviornment, and as such several different organizational strategies can work just as well from a species standpoint. Although the constructs are often built that some people fare better than others, this has nothing to do with actual ability to exploit the natural enviornment for survival, but rather an unnaturally engineered (as in not necessitated by physical enviornmental factors) power grab on the part of certain groups.
Now if a biological change happened which, as in the case proposed above, that made biological mandated insticts for sharing and exploring(for lack of better words) then the survival chances of that species would be largely determined by whether the natural (not social) enviornment could be better exploited by these traits. The oppression and dehumanization by the first group would have nothing to do with biological evolution, unless of course, it reached the point biological persecution in the form of mass killing and/or enforced steralization.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:28 am (UTC)Therefore it seems possible that human society in effect encourages the persistence of mutations.
This thought experiment was encouraged by working backwards from several puzzling dilemmas, most notably the vehement vilification of certain classes of people by the majority. There must be some mechanism driving the sense of fear and threat people in the majority feel when encountering people of sexual or intellectual minorities. The one mechanism that seems to make sense as a possible explanation is the biological drive to eliminate close competitors. It is that, or something else just as primal.
Now, suppose that we go from supposing that there is a conflict between two sets of selfish genes, to supposing a conflict is between two sets of selfish memes, or some combination thereof -- meaning that what distinguishes the first and second stocks is some combination of genetic and/or memetic markers. Assuming that memes do indeed act just lik genes, a similar explanation can be stipulated -- fierce competition between close rivals for scarce resources and reproductive advantage.
From the standpoint of rational inquiry, the idea of fiercely-competitive memetic stocks driving primal conflicts and dehumanization seems more plausible. But I don't want to rule out the genetic possibility just yet...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:04 am (UTC)If this mechanism were biological in nature, it would stand to reason that it would have affected all human cultures. But this is not the case. There have been several cultures spread throughout the world where sexual and/or intellectual minorities were accepted, or even revered. Keep in mind that biological evolution is a very slow process. There has not been enough time or in many cases enough genetic mingling to account for the rapid change in mindset that either historical record and/or present reality shows has happened within a relatively small number of generations in areas where repulsion was not previously the rule.
Social change, or memes if you will, spread much faster than biological change.
It is also worth noting that in general the more hierarchal a society is, the less sexual minorities are tolerated. In humans, sexuality is a perfect target for control. It is one of the strongest biological urges, yet unlike other biological urges, denying or suppressing it does not lead to the immediate physical endangerment of the individual. As such control can be much more subtle (to the point that the controllers may not even be consciously aware of all the mechanisms employed) Sexuality is also the strongest point of intersection of biology and psychology in humans. It is one of, if not the, strongest psychological force in the human psyche. Control a person's sexuality, dictate with whom and when and how it is proper for sex to happen, and it becomes much easier to exert other forms of control. The nature of sexuality means that if it is controlled by outside sources then the conditioning to accept control from those sources is firmly in place. In such an environment, sexual minorities become practically NECESSARY to have around. Yes, there must be the threat of the groups that want to eliminate them. Violence and implied violence are very strong tools for control. Marginalization is necessary. Sexual minorities become living, breathing examples of the price that is paid for non-conformity. If there were a biological urge to exterminate sexual minorities as "close competitors" then much more actual exterminating would be done. The histories of marginalized people by and large do not show that they were put a reproductive disadvantage, but only at a power disadvantage. The very nature of a hierarchal society - the memes that control and dictate hierarchy- require that various underclasses exist.
I really do not think it is a coincidence that practically all propaganda has sexual implications.
In your post you implied that being a member of a sexual minority and a member of an intellectual (or at the very least having the ability to accept these forms of minority) tend to occur as a cluster of traits. This makes sense. If one realizes that the predominant sexual meme is a load of bullshit, then the main mechanism of control is gone. Likewise, once a person starts questioning one form of "authority" then the process tends to spread to questioning other forms. This in turn further explains the need for violence and other forms of coercion on the part of the majority-meme in order to maintain control of those who are not responsive to the more subtle control forms.
Now, on a largely different note. The most easily observable intersection of society, technology, and biological evolution is the growing disappearance of the last set of molars. Not because it has any particular advantage, but in the age of softer and more processed and refined foods (and I suppose dentures and other dental techniques) having that extra pair of teeth is no longer an advantage one needs in order to live long enough to reproduce and raise a child. Although the lack of the last set of molars can be seen to be increasing worldwide, it has progressed most rapidly in Asian populations where the traditional diet has always been easier on the teeth.
bloody sunday
Date: 2004-10-08 03:30 am (UTC)the problem is
that you have picked
things
which lie outside the norm
and placed them together
like saying that dems and republicans are of one stock
and
all other parties
are of another stock
also
I would agree with the earlier poster
who stated
that the things which you list
aren't always connected
Constantine
Re: bloody sunday
Date: 2004-10-08 08:56 pm (UTC)Indeed, why not? That too could be an interesting thought experiment. Where does it lead?
the problem is
that you have picked
things
which lie outside the norm
and placed them together
How is that a problem? It seems to me obvious that if these characteristics are rooted in biology, that they could only be exhibited by a minority of the human population. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "outside the norm," no?
the things which you list
aren't always connected
All that means is that if genes are responsible, then it has to be more than one -- a cluster of genes that often occur together, but not always.
church bells ring
Date: 2004-10-09 01:20 am (UTC)Constantine
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:39 am (UTC)It's also possible that what we're seeing here is the single meme of tolerance of differences in sexual behavior, with the rest being a constellation of results. The tolerance doesn't cause gender ambiguity, but those with gender ambiguity seek tolerance. So do poly people, so do free-lovers, and so forth. While it's true that these people gather together, it may not be because they share a common origin but because they are all looking for the same thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:36 pm (UTC)Human social dynamic being what it is, it's not automatic that members of each stock would only seek others of their stock with whom to mate. Some humans have always found the forbidden or the different to be desirable.
There have been species in the past which were considered "evolutionary dead ends"- that is, they died out- for no apparent "evolutionary" reason. External pressures can change with a whim.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:37 pm (UTC)