## Wednesday, March 25, 2015

### Homosexuality and evolution, an attempt of an a priori argument to end homophobia

What I am going to say here doesn't have any proof, and maybe is not entirely true, but is something I would like to propose as a conjecture, and I have thought for some time, I don't know the answers a priori, because I am not a professional in other areas in science and sociology, but maybe it could be a good theory and I propose a way to take the proof apriori with a possible argument, maybe you can refute it immediately, but the aim of this is to generate a consistent strong theory to avoid discrimination and homophobia.

In the next words when I say homosexual I will be referring to lesbians or male gays.

Introduction

Lets start, some moments ago I was chatting with a friend, she told me that she has a 'friend' that was a complete retrograde, in the sense that she forbids completely the adoption between homosexuals, or that the best birth control system is god's word in your heart, I do not pretend to offend anybody but if you are going to make an argument trying to forbid or not approve you must have an a priori argument,  and not an argument based on a religious belief or a personal point of view, otherwise, you are imposing an idea like a dictator, making you retrograde.

What I am going to say is a possible-scientific reason to stop being an asshole, and maybe could be a good multidisciplinary work between mathematicians, sociologists, philosophers and evolutive biologists.

The next argument relies in the existence of models to measure situations in the nature, that proves that there is an equilibrium in the reproduction of species, interaction between species and natural resources consumption, this equilibrium is well modeled with five theories which I think are the bridges between mathematics, genetics, macro economy, evolutive biology and game theory, these models are described at the end of this post as an appendix, (Lotka-Volterra equations, Malthus model, logistic function, Nash equilibrium and Memetics).

The idea of this is provide a way to prove this:

Conjecture:
Homosexuality is a consequence of evolution.

Development of the conjecture and possible proof:

The models of population growth in terms of natural resources and interaction between species tell us that the convergence of the population when $latex t\rightarrow \infty$ is 0 when the function representing resource consumption is increasing over time, this in common sense is obvious, but more important than obvious, is that it has a mathematical model to prove it, and this models are Malthus equation and Logistic equation.

Another important theory here is Darwinian evolution which occurs with natural selection meaning that the individuals that adapt better to their environment will spread their genes with more frequency because they will be healthier for more time, this better adaptation is done because of a random mutation that makes the individual better than the others in terms of survival circumstances.

Another fact is that there is an excess of population in terms of some resources, (see variable $latex K$ in the logistic equation at the end of this post), there are more humans that the natural resources can support, but this IS NOT because we are lacking of food (this is important to understand), this is because the economic model that prevails (capitalism) bounds this resources in terms of wealth, so there are MORE humans than resources in function of wealth and economy.

So, If you accept the last paragraph, then we can continue, I accept that the last paragraph is a problem that exists, I dont know why but I have an idea that can be wrong or bad, but the veracity of the next paragraph does no depend on the veracity of the original conjeture (is used only to give an idea of why there's an overpopulation)

Conjecture (independent of the original conjecture)
The population increases in function of the advances in medicine

This may sound a little cruel, but we are trying to make science, not ethics.

With the advances of medicine, people that develops a mortal disease young due to a letal gene does not die and reproduces passing his/her lethal gene to the next generations, slowing down evolution, (note that there's no such thing as anti-evolution, evolution always goes up in terms of adaptation).

So, technology in medicine make us overpopulated, note that is easy to show that evolution occurs and there are examples of this, if there were not a treatment of wisdom teeth people would die of impacted teeth or infection at maybe a young age, making the population with wisdom teeth less and less over generations.

In the book Selfish Gene from Richard Dawkins, he mentions that a non ethical way to evolve faster will be to only permit child conception in the biological limit of age in order to permit the death generated by letal genes, and in consequence, more genetically healthy human beings.

We know now (or at least I hope I could convince you) that there's an overpopulation in terms of some natural resource which at the same time is in function of the economic model, and that the persistence of humans even when "they have to die" makes harder the natural selection.

Now we are in a point where humans in order to win the battle of resources they first most prevail and the Nash Equilibrium (see the end of the post for details) tell us that there's a point over time when the players (humans) with mixed strategies in this battle will take the most efficient decision in terms of the best decisions of the other, which is the equilibrium, if we identify the capabilities of each player (human) we will be sitting in the Lotka-Volterra equations, when we will identify which is the predator and the pray in terms of the economic model.

This Equilibrium I claim is homosexuality, which is the most natural way to solve the overpopulation, and proving that homosexuality is a natural property of the genes, a mutation in the human DNA, just as the mutation of distinguishing frequencies in our eyes and not just amplitude (colors) which was a mutation that prevailed making evolution of our eyes

First questions of this argument with a possible answer

1) Gay people are not new, there are proofs they have been in society from centuries ago and we did not have overpopulation problems.

Yes, gays have been in the society for centuries,

But what I claim is that overpopulation has been there too since centuries, and as I said before, not because there's not food... is because the overpopulation is in terms of the economic model, people cannot take an apple from a tree without taking it from somebody's territory (in most cases), so he/she has to pay to the wealthiest, this makes Malthus and Logistic model of population vs resources being in function of the capabilities of resource taking, so if this is true (Is a conjecture as I said) it justifies the same argument.

2) Darwinian Evolution confirms that the genes must be spreaded, and homosexuality is not spreaded with a homosexual couple (just in an artificial way which takes you to question 3).

Darwinian evolution is proved to be at the level of particles (See Dawkins, first chapter of Selfish Gene), particles tend to form stable structures, and this structures tend to form particles that are self replicable, this is the principle of  evolution pre-life in the planet, and is proven using the primordial soup experiment which consists in the simulation of the condition of the early earth with methane, hidrogen and amonia in combination with lightening, in a period of time monomers will form, then polymers and then self-replicatation molecules, which are the predecesors of the DNA.
This same behaviour is the basis of Darwinian sociology where the concept of spreading the gene will be a cultural concept for the next generation.

3) Gays can use in vitro methods to procreate children or "rent female" wombs (in the case of male gays)

For this I need to introduce a concept, Memetics

Memetics (Richard Dawkins work for a treatment):
Theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, is an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer where the unit transfer is a meme.

Darwinian sociology makes the adaptation, natural selection and gene spreading to be taken in a cultural level, and there it can be introduced the concept of memetics, and consider evolution something more complex in humans than just a biological facts because human are equiped with reasoning and a brain capable of thinking in complex dynamic situations.

Gay people can adopt, procreate artificially or not having children, gays are not capable of reproducing themselves, but when they adopt or procreate they spread the gene that makes them homosexual with a probability of 50%,  or in the case of adoption, memetics from Richard Dawkins can be used and they will spread the Meme (See Memetics), which partially answers the previous question and justifies their existence as an evolutionary individual capable of reproducing his/her genes and memes.

Direct consequences of this conjecture

Homosexuality cannot be a disease, or a "condition", in darwinian evolution a mutation that affects the species wont prevail, so homosexuality is a property in human beings making them a naturally evolved organism.

Personal conclusion

Homosexuality is the direct consequence of a future in society when the convergence is of not having men or women, gay or not gay, but having just individuals or human beings, making them the key to find an equilibrium as a specie.

Appendix of used arguments in the previous idea for interaction models for resources modeling in function of population and competition.

Nash Equilibrium
John Nash proved that in a game, (in this case the battle of resources between humans) with mixed strategies (this means that, if there are different set of specific rules to win a game, you can randomly change strategies to win a game) there's always a point of Nash equilibrium between the parts, this means that , if $latex A$ is compiting with $latex B$ , the Nash equilibrium is the point were $latex A$ has the best decision taking in consideration $latex B$ decisions in the evolution of the game, and the same with $latex B$, $latex B$ has the best decision in consideration of $latex A$

Lotka-Volterra Equations tell us the dynamics of two species, where one of this species is a predator of the other (the prey).

$latex \frac{dx}{dt}=\alpha x -\beta xy$
$latex \frac{dy}{dt}=\delta xy -\gamma y$

This equations tell us that if $latex x$ are the number of preys, and $latex y$ are the number of predators , $latex \frac{dx}{dt}$ and $latex \frac{dy}{dt}$ are the changes in population of each other over time $latex t$, $latex \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$ are values that represent the interaction of the species in terms of statistical analysis via observation.

The solution is a function which will tell you what will happen over time with both species and this equations can be generalized to the interaction of more than two.

Malthus equation

Lotka-Volterra equations can be combined with this equation which tells you how the population of an species grow, and what Malthus proved is that is exponential over time.

$latex P(t)=\hat{P} e^{\lambda t}}$

Where $latex P(t)$ is the population at time $latex t$ and $latex \hat{P}$ is the initial number of individuals, and $latex \lambda}$ is a constant (what we want to convert in a function in this idea) that measures the interaction of this specie with their natural resources (or even with other individuals)

Logistic equation

An improved version of the last one is given when you can measure the MAXIMUM number of individuals $latex K$ that an environment can provide resources in a way that no individual will lack of food or a resource that is natural to their lives.

$latex \frac{dP}{dt}=\lambda P(1-P/K)$

Eduardo Ruíz Duarte (beck)

Unknown said...

Te quiero más :)

Dafne said...

Sure, your theory is valid and Darwin's work are based on Malthus equations.
Olso you need to remembe that sexuality is an spectrum that is eye-feeling based, so, with the righ stimulation and perfect timing you can deleop feelings in someone just because you know their needs and of course, they are open to really explore the possibility.

Really like it!!
D.

Dafne said...

also* remember* develop*
Sorry, hate my phone sometimes.