Is Anne Hegerty the new Dr.Who?

I was talking in terms of evolutionary theory. Gay siblings are an advantage, from an evolutionary perspective, to your kids, because the only means they have of passing their traits / genes into the next generation is through ensuring those related to them prosper.

They represent an additional resource beyond your parents that can benefit you, that won't be using their resources on their offspring.

Even if other species, an infertile wolf, for example, is a benefit to the pack in ways that an fertile one - its a disposable resource for the pack, to protect and benefit the pack - It cannot reproduce and if we take the idea of evolutionary biology, its acts to protect the pack (and may even adopt cubs that are orphaned).

Assuming we accept that passing genes and traits on is the functional drive of living species (and we're talking in a biological paradigm here). The more gay people related to you, the better your prospects.

Because we're talking evolutionary theory and biological paradims, individual behaviour isn't considered - its about a species wide scenario - and the basis of evolutionary theory is the imperative to pass genes on into the future generations.

Evolution tends towards scenarios were everything serves a value that occurs frequently in nature - although that role might not be beneficial to the individual themselves.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The childless - gay or otherwise - are a boon to other people's kids because we* contribute to society with our work output and our taxes, without adding our own kids who would otherwise be drawing from the same resources as everyone else's kids.

* I am childless by choice, and have recently made that choice permanent [snip]. My wife and I decided that, if we ever want kids, we will adopt. Neither of us being so arrogant to think that the world cannot go on unless our genes are perpetuated.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

You are just repeating the same points and I've already pointed out the problems inherent with this theory.

It's not proof of anything of course but I recently came across an interview with Dawkins where he refers to this theory and briefly stated that he also doesn't believe it.

A complete argument from authority of course and so as such no proof of anything but still, he's a pretty big hitter. So if he doubts it I'm waiting to hear your answers to the problems with the theory.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2017 6.10pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Is there anything more selfish than deciding that the world absolutely must have more "you"?

Also, thanks for the judgment of how I live my life without a single clue as to how I actually do. It puts into perspective the basis in fact of all of your other opinions that are dotted about this board like pats in a cow field.

Ray in Houston childless? Selfish t***.
Dick Gregory...never heard of him. Can't be important.

And on and on. It's a very, very clear pattern.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

I'm talking about self-importance and selfishness as opposed to being less important than your children. In existential terms, nothing is important, or so it might appear. Of course, we don't know the end game of existence, so the relative importance of anything is unknown and at the same time as important as the importance we wish to attach to it. Any one event in the grand scheme might be relatively unimportant or meaningless but that is really just in the eye of the sentient beholder if the universe is a self-organising phenomenon with an as yet unknown outcome. That is too complex a discussion to have here.
As biological entities, most have a preconditioned desire to reproduce and nurture and in that sense, it is as important as anything we do. By having no children it is possible that one's life will seem meaningless, which brings me back to my original point.