This is something I thought of way back in high school when I first heard this trite banality that is termed "sociobiology."
You have all probably heard the social-psychological theory that millions of years of evolution is why men like technology and science and, I apologize ahead of time, slutty sex, and it is why women like pink and can’t fix a clogged plumbing pipe, or something like that.
Okay, I am exaggerating, but why is it that so many humans insist that a male’s role is somehow better than a female’s role? Much of the opinions of what is better or worse are just a matter of interpretation. Being promiscuous as males do, as too many humans think, means “sexual freedom.”
Ah, excuse me? Not knowing how many offspring you have; not knowing who the mothers are; spreading the chance that one of your unknown offspring might meet another one of your unknown offspring someday in the future, and, not knowing who their ancestors are, become married and have children that incidentally are inbred! That’s not freedom, that is irresponsibility. And it is being a “slut.” Like it or not, that's the truth.
Females on the other hand, according to the theory, prefer to stay with one mate and have all their children with this one person. As evolutionary biologists say, look at how much energy, time, and effort a female must to devote to raising her offspring.
I truly think that should entitle her to be immensely respected and admired, not put down because she doesn’t have “sexual freedom.” What would be best is if both males and females tried to be monogamous, and that females wouldn’t try to even the bar by being as promiscuous as men (wrongly) think they have the right to be.
---proof that promsicuit is NOTT higher evolution due to evoll:: see how the evolution thumpers are saying math ans science are due to evlo.' well, math adn sci are higher level criticla thinking.****
-->> so if we can use critical thinking and intelligence for one bit of evidence of higher evolution, then why can we not use that selfsame argument and apply it to another branch of sociobiology?
the-- wehn I rebuttaled that,, "then why do we have dominion over lions tigers and bears?"
[[put here the 'I'm sorry could you repeat that?' comeback to the idiotic musings that people have a capacity for thinking rational thought, reasoning, logic, but yet magically somehow do not have the capacity to see that they should not risk STD or unwanted pregnancy.
*** one about hiw, specif I think, 'we have evoled th the poit that we can decide for ourselves whether we want to keep letting past evolution decide our future fate (destuny).'
The reason animals let their biological urges determine their outward behavior is that they have no choice in the matter. Animals are not sentient. They do not posses self-awareness, they do not have conscious awareness of their actions. Animals do not have "thoughts" nor "feelings" in the same way that people have thoughts or feelings. (Put some stuff in here about psychology,, like rational decision-making. Cognitive ability.)) they do not have the decision-making capabilities that we Homo sapiens possess.
In History 101, the professor mentioned that the earliest humans were wanderers, nomads. They would use up a small area's physical resources, food, grains, plant matter, animal flora and fauna. They had to use up an area's resources and, once they used up said resources, they the no choice and were forced to move on from the area
This is called being entirely dependent on "natural" rules that forced them to conform to a non-conscious schedule. Being a slave to nature's dictates and whims, and not being able to [[stake one's claim on a piece of land and calling it one's own.]]]
But then after that, miracle of miracles. Someone realized that farming and planting were possible. From then on, early humans tilled the land and made it work for humans. They realized they could use the land as a renewable resource. They could use the same land over and over again____,,, instead of picking one area bone dry and then helplessly moving along when they could no longer get any handouts from the land.
They realized they no longer had to let nature rule their lives. Before, they were not able to work and tweak and adjust nature to their own needs of survival. But once they gained this knowledge, early humans realized that they could_____. This is called intelligence. This is called using foresight, thinking and planning, conscious decision-making processes.
This is called using good judgment and not using the excuse that just because nature does something, this is somehow a good excuse for humans not bothering to use good judgment. This is called not allowing nature take control of your conscious life. This is called using a higher level of consciousness and intelligence than simply what biology dictates.
So if humans can figure this out regarding land, then similarly humans should also be able to figure this out regarding their reproductive systems.
--put the greylag gooses exampel, that of rolling the egg back into the nest. even if the egg falls out of the way [[to the wayside]]] so that essentialy there is no more egg to roll. this is because they are lower anmals. they do not have the brain capacity for rational, conscious control of actions. a goose that is engaged in egg-rolling behavior is doing this on autopilot instinct. a goose is not able to stop and think, "wait a minute, what am I doing here? Why am I wasting my time rolling an egg that is not there?" the goose is not able to dicide to stop or start its behavior. evidenlty, it is also not able to deicde to go look for the egg that roled awya. it is not smart enought.
But we are a higher order of being. We are Homo sapiens. With humans, there is no such thing as biological traits affecting behavior. Behavior is a matter of conscious thought being put into voluntary action.
We have the capacity for conscious decision-making processes. Ergo, we have the ability to consciously look at a path choice and decide, of our own volition, is this the right thing to do? Is this the right moral choice to make?
You have all probably heard the social-psychological theory that millions of years of evolution is why men like technology and science and, I apologize ahead of time, slutty sex, and it is why women like pink and can’t fix a clogged plumbing pipe, or something like that.
Okay, I am exaggerating, but why is it that so many humans insist that a male’s role is somehow better than a female’s role? Much of the opinions of what is better or worse are just a matter of interpretation. Being promiscuous as males do, as too many humans think, means “sexual freedom.”
Ah, excuse me? Not knowing how many offspring you have; not knowing who the mothers are; spreading the chance that one of your unknown offspring might meet another one of your unknown offspring someday in the future, and, not knowing who their ancestors are, become married and have children that incidentally are inbred! That’s not freedom, that is irresponsibility. And it is being a “slut.” Like it or not, that's the truth.
Females on the other hand, according to the theory, prefer to stay with one mate and have all their children with this one person. As evolutionary biologists say, look at how much energy, time, and effort a female must to devote to raising her offspring.
I truly think that should entitle her to be immensely respected and admired, not put down because she doesn’t have “sexual freedom.” What would be best is if both males and females tried to be monogamous, and that females wouldn’t try to even the bar by being as promiscuous as men (wrongly) think they have the right to be.
---proof that promsicuit is NOTT higher evolution due to evoll:: see how the evolution thumpers are saying math ans science are due to evlo.' well, math adn sci are higher level criticla thinking.****
-->> so if we can use critical thinking and intelligence for one bit of evidence of higher evolution, then why can we not use that selfsame argument and apply it to another branch of sociobiology?
the-- wehn I rebuttaled that,, "then why do we have dominion over lions tigers and bears?"
[[put here the 'I'm sorry could you repeat that?' comeback to the idiotic musings that people have a capacity for thinking rational thought, reasoning, logic, but yet magically somehow do not have the capacity to see that they should not risk STD or unwanted pregnancy.
*** one about hiw, specif I think, 'we have evoled th the poit that we can decide for ourselves whether we want to keep letting past evolution decide our future fate (destuny).'
The reason animals let their biological urges determine their outward behavior is that they have no choice in the matter. Animals are not sentient. They do not posses self-awareness, they do not have conscious awareness of their actions. Animals do not have "thoughts" nor "feelings" in the same way that people have thoughts or feelings. (Put some stuff in here about psychology,, like rational decision-making. Cognitive ability.)) they do not have the decision-making capabilities that we Homo sapiens possess.
In History 101, the professor mentioned that the earliest humans were wanderers, nomads. They would use up a small area's physical resources, food, grains, plant matter, animal flora and fauna. They had to use up an area's resources and, once they used up said resources, they the no choice and were forced to move on from the area
This is called being entirely dependent on "natural" rules that forced them to conform to a non-conscious schedule. Being a slave to nature's dictates and whims, and not being able to [[stake one's claim on a piece of land and calling it one's own.]]]
But then after that, miracle of miracles. Someone realized that farming and planting were possible. From then on, early humans tilled the land and made it work for humans. They realized they could use the land as a renewable resource. They could use the same land over and over again____,,, instead of picking one area bone dry and then helplessly moving along when they could no longer get any handouts from the land.
They realized they no longer had to let nature rule their lives. Before, they were not able to work and tweak and adjust nature to their own needs of survival. But once they gained this knowledge, early humans realized that they could_____. This is called intelligence. This is called using foresight, thinking and planning, conscious decision-making processes.
This is called using good judgment and not using the excuse that just because nature does something, this is somehow a good excuse for humans not bothering to use good judgment. This is called not allowing nature take control of your conscious life. This is called using a higher level of consciousness and intelligence than simply what biology dictates.
So if humans can figure this out regarding land, then similarly humans should also be able to figure this out regarding their reproductive systems.
--put the greylag gooses exampel, that of rolling the egg back into the nest. even if the egg falls out of the way [[to the wayside]]] so that essentialy there is no more egg to roll. this is because they are lower anmals. they do not have the brain capacity for rational, conscious control of actions. a goose that is engaged in egg-rolling behavior is doing this on autopilot instinct. a goose is not able to stop and think, "wait a minute, what am I doing here? Why am I wasting my time rolling an egg that is not there?" the goose is not able to dicide to stop or start its behavior. evidenlty, it is also not able to deicde to go look for the egg that roled awya. it is not smart enought.
But we are a higher order of being. We are Homo sapiens. With humans, there is no such thing as biological traits affecting behavior. Behavior is a matter of conscious thought being put into voluntary action.
We have the capacity for conscious decision-making processes. Ergo, we have the ability to consciously look at a path choice and decide, of our own volition, is this the right thing to do? Is this the right moral choice to make?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment