Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

Pansexual: the human norm

bonobos-chilling

Bonobos chilling to the beat — as well as being pansexual and gender-fluid, bonobos like music. How cool is that?

When we did the research for Why Men Made God we spent a lot of time looking at how societies might have been structured in the era before the development of agriculture and the establishment of the patriarchy (I will be calling these ‘traditional’ societies.) Clearly, we can’t directly study the human groups that existed outside Africa between 50,000 and 5,000 years ago, because they no longer exist.

They left very little evidence. Although they did use stone and bone, a great deal of their artefacts were made of wood or leather and were perishable. The few that we do have are somewhat mysterious.

To try to shed light on this, we reviewed a wide range of anthropological literature. We especially concentrated on extant traditional societies, of which there are a surprising number, despite the attempts by the patriarchy, especially the Christian and Muslim ones, to eradicate them. (As a matter of fact, Islam has been less damaging to many traditional societies than Christianity, as we see from the number of traditional groups still living, and respected, in Indonesia.)

We reviewed the mythology that was recorded soon after the invention of writing in the culture that leads to the Western Patriarchy, which appeared in Sumer in the 5th Millennium BCE. We then compared this to modern mythologies which form part of traditional cultures.

We also looked at close relatives of humans, particularly our closest, the Dwarf Chimpanzee or bonobo, Pan paniscus.

Bonobos bonding

Bonobos bonding

Bonobos have a fascinating social model. They are pansexual and gender-fluid. Males are not dominant and rape has never been observed in bonobo society, either in the wild or in captivity. Generally speaking, they have very relaxed, cool societies with notably low levels of aggression and stress.

In fact, bonobos use sex as the antidote to aggression and stress. Instead of fighting, they love each other, to be blunt. What is interesting is that when they do this, there is no dominance imperative: partners in bonobo sexual relations are equals. Females and males are equally likely to initiate sex. Furthermore, they have no defined preferences — they will as happily have sex with same-sex partners as with opposite.

Sex is a powerful bonding agent in bonobo society. It holds groups together and prevents division. This protects the group from falling apart and thus the individuals within it are more likely to survive. So sex has an evolutionary imperative alongside the reproductive one. In fact, bonobos don’t have sex to make babies, they have sex with their friends and for fun, because they like it. However, they have so much sex that there is no shortage of bonobo babies. Bonobos are evolved to be pansexual and gender-fluid, and we argue that this is the case for humans too.

It should be clear how this torpedoes the ‘homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end’ argument. It might be, as far as individuals are concerned, but when everyone is having sex with everyone else, this is not the case. Being exclusively homosexual does mean an end to the individual’s genetic line, but this is not how same-sex sex works in either bonobo or traditional societies. The individual male only has to impregnate one female to reproduce his genes; and given the amount of sex in bonobo society, and the variety of it, this is easily achieved. The same, of course, holds true for females — if they give up having sex with each other occasionally to have it with a male, job done. Bonobos are naturally pansexual, to accommodate this, and we argue that the same is true of humans, and back it up with examples.

Further, bonobos are gender-fluid. This does not mean what some people think it does; it is not about wearing a miniskirt and sporting a beard. It means being happy to play either the penetrating or receiving role in sex. Bonobo males are routinely observed having sex, in which one penetrates and the other receives, and immediately after, having sex again and swapping roles. Then they will go off and have sex with females, who probably were having sex with each other in the meantime. Bonobo children are brought up by the group.

bonobo-female-sex

Bonobo females having fun sex.

We share over 98% of our DNA with bonobos and our traditional social models are almost identical. We wondered if we would find something in traditional societies that pointed to similar behaviours in humans and we found it.

All over the world, traditional societies exist that do not follow the patriarchal model, which is, men appropriate women as their mates for life; women in the patriarchy are the literal possessions, the property of men, initially their father, then their husband and brothers. Yet in traditional societies, this is not the case.

In many such cultures, same-sex activity is normal; frequently this is observed between adult men and boys. (Unfortunately, and probably due to the fact that the anthropologists doing the research were men, there is far less information about the women’s sexuality.) The adult men in these relations have women partners too. We cite quite a few examples and refer to over 400 sources in Why Men Made God that develop this.

We know of the Spartans that not only the men but the women had normalised same-sex relations, and while Sparta was a matriarchy, this appears also to have happened in more patriarchal pre-Abrahamic cultures too, which surprised me, frankly.

In fact, being gender fluid (in a sexual sense) and pansexual appears to be as normal for humans as it is for bonobos. However, bonobos have had to do without the curse of organised patriarchal religions, so are still happily having sex with anyone they like, while we invented a whole raft of ridiculous rules and conventions about it.

So in a way, this question is the wrong way round; it should be ‘When and why did strict monogamy and heterosexuality become enforced?’ and the answer to that we give in the book.

Now a caveat: we are talking about sex. The modern idea, that one is only ever attracted to a specific gender, is a modern idea, a by-product of the artificial sexual model imposed by the patriarchy. In fact, we should be having sex with all our friends and developing stronger bonds with them; instead we invented golf. However the patriarchy doesn’t want people being relaxed and loving each other; it wants people to compete, so they miss how it’s shafting them. Again, we explain this in far greater detail in the book than I can go into here.

Gender in the patriarchy is a construct which was developed and is used to suppress women. Gender, in fact, is how you are having sex at one specific moment in time. That’s all. In five minutes you might swap. It confers no advantage or superiority, and one gender is not intrinsically more attractive than the other. Most of what you have read or heard about this is a patriarchal lie.

With that in mind, it is disappointing to see how the modern gay ‘accommodationist’ movement has modelled itself on the patriarchy and imposes rules of behaviour on those whom is sees as being under its aegis. There is nothing that says ‘once gay always gay’ or that a man may not enjoy sex with other men, and also with women and vice versa. These are pseudo-patriarchal rules of behaviour invented by white gay male academics and activists who seek access to patriarchal privilege. I never thought that would happen; but then, the patriarchy is devious and good at perverting people to its ends.

People will not be happy and at peace until the patriarchy, and all its ridiculous rules and conventions, is utterly destroyed. Can’t come quick enough for me.

bonobo4

The post Pansexual: the human norm appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Friday, 7 August 2015

Evolution observed in trout

evolution-trout-salmo-truttaYou have to be brain-dead to deny the fact of Evolution these days. Well, these last 150 years actually… Apparently though, at least 40% of USians (other Americans are smarter), are indeed just so cerebrally demised. Hopped the neurological twig as it were. Zombified the gray matter. Deceased the thinking apparatus.

Now why would we worry? These are sister-shagging Bible belt rednecks who still think the South actually won the Civil War, aren’t they? ‘Oh no man we just kinda took a time out for a mint juleps n some grits n shit them gaddamn Yankees done called time on us!’ So who cares what they think?

Well the trouble is, they get to elect the Preseedunt of the Yewnited States (of America, not Mexico), and unfortunately, given the performance of some of the incumbents, that is the most powerful office in the world. I mean they elected Dubbya. (Well they didn’t really, but he still got the job.) And there is a risk they might elect another scion of the Terminally Religionard House of Bush next year.

‘Howdee do Jebby boy! Done shot any coons lately? I do mean raccoons now, y’all. Maybe one o them Afreecan Geeraffes? Or a Liahn?’

Mind you, I must admit that this one is less obviously an evolutionary throwback

evolution-bush-chimp

Well he does

— an irony lost on the Scions of Bush — than the last. Visually anyway. Lemme pick a louse or two there, Dub.

Maybe southern shitkickers too busy chasing their sisters’ tails to think about it might not be worried that the most powerful person in the world might be a man whose brain has already said ‘Hasta la vista’, but the rest of us should.

You could ask whatever it is now, a quarter of a million dead Iraqis, or Kurds or Syrians what they think, but oh dang woops a daisy, they done got killed already. And anyway, they ain’t Chrischuns.

But one must never lose hope of turning the tide of wilful, self inflicted, deliberate stupidity that laps at the shores of ‘Amereeca’. And there are signs of hope: The Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most intensely and egregiously thick religious groups in the United States, has quietly — not telling anyone now– lost a million adherents over the last few years, down from 17 million to 16. And even better, this reduction has been linked to Internet access, suggesting that mutts too stupid to read a book will believe what they see on a screen in front of them — something the yellow journalists at Fox figured out a while ago.

But because the Internet is not filtered by Murdoch-friendly aliens attempting to take over the planet on the quiet, some actual real truth slips through. From time to time.

And here is a nice piece just to show that. Scientific American magazine (the readership of which is probably not amongst the 40%,) has run a story this week about observed Evolution in trout.

Fish are known to be able to adapt quickly to environmental changes, particularly pollutants like heavy metals and PCBs. Noting this, the magazine discusses a study on  trout (Salmo trutta) in southwest England (where the greeting used to be ‘Oooaarr buoy, oo well terday?’ but has become ‘Ayoh morning cheps do try not to get the doorstep muddy,’ due to an influx of early-retired middle-class Londoners making it impossible for locals to afford to live there.)

Anyway SM says that the study ‘reveals not only that the local populations of these trout have changed rapidly in response to pollution, it also ties distinct genetic changes to precise events in human industrial history.’

In other words, we can see the evolution and at the same time we can see what caused it. Neat huh? (Stop sticking your tongue in Lucy-Mae’s ear, Jebediah. Lawsh knows what your mother would think. Oh, she’s your cousin…just this once then.)

evolution-food

An egregious picture of some nice food. Including a trout

The team from the University of Exeter were able to identify two specific genetic divergences in the fish, both directly related to industrial activities, one 960 and the other 150 years ago.

From the SM piece, ‘Dating techniques can be quite imprecise but the fact that both splits fit events in history so well was compelling and a big surprise,’ says Jamie Stevens, the research team leader. ‘The adaptation appears to be metal-specific, with trout in each river adapted to a unique cocktail of metals. A fish in one river might tolerate arsenic but would die in a catchment high in tin or zinc.’

These splits coincide with peaks in mining and industrial activity and it appears that the fish suffered ‘bottlenecks’ at each of these two points, when their numbers were drastically reduced and only the most resistant to the pollution survived, passing on this genetic adaptation to future generations.

(Bottlenecks are something that we discuss in Why Men Made God, by the way. Great read.)

japanese-girl-with-trout-evolution

Egregious picture of a girl with a trout. It’s Friday

So not only can we show that Evolution happens, we can also show that human activity can provoke it. So, job done. Evolution observed, theory confirmed, all Evolution-deniers either shut up or shoot yourselves.

Now I know that the Bible-belters are all standing there with their fingers (or their cousin’s tongues) in their ears shouting ‘Lalalalala I can’t hear you,’ (or ‘Ooooh, Jebby let’s go back to Ma’s trailer and make a baby,’) but that’s no reason not to share a good wee story from an excellent magazine.

And hey, maybe somebody might learn something. Maybe.

The post Evolution observed in trout appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Monday, 6 January 2014

45% of Americans are Retards.

[caption id="attachment_1224" align="alignleft" width="234"]earth-from-space-NASA Pic: NASA[/caption]

45% of Americans—well, people in the United States of America, which is, as far as they seem to be concerned, all of America—are retards. Not only is this truth shocking, it is dangerous and threatens all of us.

That 45% of Americans are so gravely afflicted has already caused pause for many commentators, including other Americans. The scientist and media personality, Bill Nye, for example, lamented it publicly, and not for the first time, in a YouTube video posted yesterday.

If there is consolation, and there’s not much, it only comes from the fact that for the last twenty years that the Galup polling organisation has been researching this, the figure remains relatively unchanged. So how did Galup come to its findings?