John E. Rylander wrote:
>I wholly agree that it's vague and speculative, even fanciful in detail
>(e.g., E. O. Wilson's explaining homosexuality as genetically induced, such
>genes being contained in communities that flourished because of numerous
>heterosexually uncompetitive "helper males", as I recall -- kind of like
>drones or worker ants). Evolutionary psychology relies on knowledge (or a
>best guess) of human and pre-human history, which is always somewhat
>speculative.
I wonder if Wilson considered the other side of the coin--the utility of
having some strong characters within the female side of communities.
That (I speculate) might be more important than having some guys who
were into sewing and cooking.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 14:43:25 EST