Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Welcome to EvC. Aside from that, if natural selection intended to spit out homosexuals, then they are obviously "weaker" by the terms of natural selection. Couldn't possibly be comforting to know that you are an evolutionary dead end and nature's cannon fodder. Even though you and I disagree fundamentally, we are in total agreement on this aspect. I wish more evo's would listen to you instead of trying to be PC and defend homosexuality not on naturalistic premises but for cultural taboo. Well, they feel very ostracized and aren't sure where they fit in. As far as they go, they are the very antithesis of nature and evolution, specifically, because the entire theory of evolution is completely dependent on heterosexual sex to perpetuate a secies. Theologically its no better as most of the beliefs ask the simple question of why a Creator would choose to go agaist the very nature it created in the first place. There have been quite a few theories circulating, but no, nothing concrete. Yeah, I find it libelous to be labelled a 'homophobe' simply because you find it difficult to reconcile homosexuality as a natural process.What can I do?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Only if you say so. I believe the word you were looking for was "precludes." I'm having a hard time in even dignifying this with an answer because its such masterful ad hoc, PC nonsense. I'll stiffle that urge. First of all, asexual organisms are clearly exempt from this example, however, it doesn't take a genius to realize that sexual reproduction is critical, absolutely critical to most of the Kingdoms. Secondly, whether brothers or sisters share a proportionate amount of similar genetic simalarity doesn't invalidate how important sexual reproduction is, in fact, it aggrandizes the notion quite well. Lastly, your brother and sister are not you and I can't even find the words to show the absurdity that somehow nature 'knows' how to give your bro and sis a leg up for you. That's patently false to the point of total absurdity. And to further elucidate the point, it still does nothing to explain why they have sexual urges, if most evolutionists claim that the sole reason for sex is to proliferate. Why such sharp instincts that go in reverse, if nature, with its rapier wit, can muster the understanding that your siblings will take up your honor in your stead? That was asinine as it is begging the point. She obviously wants children because her instincts tell her this. And that's another thing: If what you said is even remotely true about homosexuals, then why the desire to adopt children if they are really just natures way of abating overpopulation?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Natural selection favors the stronger over the weaker in most cases. It also needs a gene pool in which drift and select from, right? So if homosexuals don't have a prediliction to pass on genes then they are an evolutionary dead end, no? As well, to even make this argument that siblings pick up for their gay bro/sis, you'd have to quantify how many homosexuals have any siblings at all. You'd also have to to quantfiy how many heterosexuals have siblings and also find out how fertile they are. I mean what you are espousing is the biggest strawman I've ever seen-- its king of the scarecrows. I'm not confusing anything. This is very simple logic. If it was just about merely 'feeling good,' just about anything could satisfy some baser appetite, so why go out of one's way to find someone of the same sex if just about feeling good?. If someone claims they are gay they are claiming that they have no sexual desire for the opposite sex. If that desire doesn't exist because of genetics, then by the terms of natural selection, they are the weaker forms of humanity because they will have no desire to perpetuate. To overcome this they have to go against their own expressed nature. Bottom line: Evolution and homosexuality are at odds.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

The only bigotry going on is the gross way some evolutionists are tryin to somehow consolidate their scientific beliefs with their moral pronouncements even they are diametrically opposed. I mean, at least cede this one point, that by the terms of natural selection, a homosexual is considered weaker. I've been gone most of the week and haven't had a chance to see RAZD's posts, but I can tell you this much even before I read them, that we are speaking on an individual basis not entire species or an entire population. See, you clearly recognize the implications of the argument, so you rush in to aid the homosexual community for political and moral reasons while trying to somehow make it so that your treasured beliefs don't coflict with your particular brand of science. Isn't that what evolutionists charge ID'ers and creationists with?- a pandering and catering to their beliefs instead of following the evidence wherever it may lead, irrespective of the results?This poses no problem to my argument. If a single worker bee is not selected by nature to procreate with the Queen bee, then he is clearly the loser in nature on an individual basis. Its the same for a homosexual. And if nature somehow had the forethought to produce homosexuals to abate the population growth, then one, you'd have to consider that nature has a mind which makes the intelligence design inference that much more attractive, or two, it refutes its own argument by making siblings reproduce the same amount of children into the population in stead of their brother or sister. Your argument doesn't work. I've contemplated the whole argument and can see no reconciliation between homosexuals and nature without drastically changing all of the paradigms that make science what it is today. Its a slippery slope for homosexuals, unless they can recognize that they are indeed nature's cannon fodder.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

The continuance of any kind of evolutionary advance requires procreation. If nature actualy removed the very thing that causes its actuality, I can scarecyl see how the products of this would somehow be winners in the game of life. Now, please don't misunderstand me when I speak of winners and losers. I could give a whit for all of that personally, however, I see that many evolutionists place alot of stock in it. They've removed reason from life and have succesfully reduced the whole of life into life or death as the measure of success. So, if nature removes the desire to procreate with members of the opposite sex, then there is no way for them to pass on their genes, which again, is supposed to be the sole purpose of any organism that resides in a purposeless universe, right? Aid in childbirth? Really, what does any of those guesstimates have to do with the fact that the desire to pass on their genes have been removed? It sounds like someone is trying to find good reasons for why homosexuality exists when there just are no redeeming natural qualities actually found. Its kind of like the Sickle Cell Anemia and malaria trade-off in a population. Congratualtions, you've staved off malaria, but 1 out of four will contract it and 1 out of three of your offspring cannot properly oxygenate their cells. Its just not really a good trade-off that one could brag about from an evolutionary standpoint. Don't misunderstand to mean that homosexuals are somehow genetically inferior to heterosexuals. I'm not suggesting that at all. There is no physical difference whatsoever. However, if nature turns on or selects a gene that causes a male or a female not to desire heterosexual reproduction, how could they not be construed as 'weak?' Again, we are speaking soley from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm not saying that homosexuality wil breed out of existence, am saying the one who claims to be homosexual will not pass on their genes. The only way to overcome it is to go against the grain and usurp nature, in which case, what's the point? Why usurp nature? If you were to say that you are gay, then be gay. If you claim that nature created you to abate the population, then let it be your lot in life. You obviously derive some sort of pride from it. But don't undermine that by going out and having children through a willing suitor of the opposite sex which totally undermines your own argument. How can they have their cake and eat it too without being hypocrites of their own expressed nature? Is being a homosexual a natural occurance or is it a psychological manifestation? Yes, but I'm not an evolutionist. I happen to believe that life is more than mere procreation, survival of the fittest, etc. I happen to believe that life has purpose and meaning that extends beyond some biological function. Evolutionists of the atheistic persuasion, however, cannot see any purpose beyond gene selection. I'm using the argument against evolutionists because, as you can see by their responses, they have a difficult time attempting to reconcile the disparity.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I meant Drones not Workers. Aside from that, what kind of profundity am I supposed to extract from this argument as it relates to humans? I haven't read RAZD's post at all. But after all of this fuss I think I'll track it down and give it a gander.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

In terms of pure selection on the genetic level, the rules don't apply. My reason for mentioning it is because the most coveted notariety an organism can achieve, as it pertains to evolution, is survivability and gene selection. So, if nature actually removes the desire of procreation by removing the desire to copulate with members of the opposite sex, isn't that the lowest form nature could derive? I mean, think about it objectively for a moment. For those who are imbued by a meaningless universe and who only find reason in simple terms of survival/death, weak/strong, the homosexual is an evolutionary dead end. I don't see any way of getting around that point.I find it that one's social acceptance of homosexuality is directly contravened by the naturalistic worldview. The two cannot coexist under both pretenses as they are incompatible. This is a separate issue because I'm aware that if homosexuality were the result of genes or the result of some glandular disturbance in early development is inconsequential to the argument on an individual basis. I'm speaking about a population. I'm merely asking what are the social :vs: naturalistic ramifications for homosexuality? Riddle me this: If nature removes the desire to pass on their genes then the homosexual will die genetically, right? Its not that they are physically any less fit. I don't suggest that or believe that at all. But if nature stymies ones will to procreate effectively, which, I think, everyone here could agree that so much evolutionary emphasis is on procreation, what does that say about the homosexual? Are they not a dead end, solely from an evolutionary standpoint?Some have said, "but they can procreate." Yes, I'm aware that they can physically procreate. But if nature gives us predilictions and penchants towards sexual attraction of the same sex, what purpose does it serve to try and override those emotions by procreating with a member of the opposite sex? Why supplant what nature has done? If homosexaulity is as natural as being born with green eyes, why try to go against the grain? If nature gives the desire for water by creating thirst, why try and go against that? If nature gives us the desire for food by designing hunger pangs, why go against that nature? Uh-huh, but where does nature fit into this? This doesn't strike you as odd and unnatural? Yes, I understand that, but we are speaking about nature and why nature would even develop homosexuality. Nature favors the strong and opposes the weak. There must be some underlying purpose for nature causing the actuality of homosexuality. If there isn't, then it was invented by man as just another thought to satisfy their salacious desires. And what are some of the social ramifications? Couldn't the pederast simply say that it was nature that made him desire children sexually? Can't the zoophile say that nature made him desire animals from another taxon with the same amount of conviction as the homosexual to feel justified in ones' actions? Its not an argument at all worth defending, IMO. If homosexuality is natures way of abating the population, but sis is spittin' out the same amount of kids for gay brother, then the exponent growth of the population is the same, in which case, you're still left pondering why nature ever experimented with homosexuality to begin with. It makes no sense. Its just a really bad argument and I wish the people positing such claims would stop to think how utterly unfounded and how ridiculous such a claim really is by a peoples that possible think of themselves as being pragmatists. But through all the floundering its very evident to me that some people understand the implications that I've addressed and they are trying to marry their social beliefs with their scientific beliefs because, as it is currently, they seem to be irreconcilable. You misunderstood my point. Many, if not most, of the evo's on EvC take the stance that survivability and procreation are pretty much two facets of life that are the pinnacle of any organism. Where then does homosexuality fit in the picture if, for them, its all about how it 'feels good' or 'feels right' when they are with a member of the same sex? If nature removes your desire to procreate, i.e., pass on your genes, then are't you an evolutionary dead end? I view people as having more value than being merely sperm receptacles and I see life as a bit more precious than this, but unfortuantely, most evo's believe that life is basically meaningless, and the only real measure of life is how succesful you are by living the longest and passing on the most genes. That, to them, is the measure of success, biologically speaking. Where then does the homosexual fit into those parameters? No, I do not, because I don't see the measure of one's self in procreation. That's probably because, one, I'm not an evolutionist, and two, I believe there is a higher purpose than a cosmic accident. Well, I think its more Malthusian conspiracy than it will be a problem that materializes any time soon.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Uh-huh, so if the desire is to have children still then how is it natural to subvert nature? Which might lead any reasonable person to conclude that its psychologically driven, not a propensity given to us by nature. Its not an assumption at all. If homosexuality is perfectly natural then there is a perfectly good reason why nature would cause individuals to not desire memebers of the opposite sex, which, again, to a strict naturalist the whole realm of purpose is wrapped up in the aspects of survival and procreation. So are humans the only animals that copulate for reasons of pleasure and procreation? This is an awful lot of hand waiving. You make it seem that nature and human technology are in cahoots with one another. I'm not talking about humans can overcome what nature has done, I'm asking why and how nature does it at all. If you can't guess as to what my motive is at this point, I'm questioniing whether homosexuality is a natural, biological desire as opposed to a psychological desire that manifests itself for other reasons. Female fecundity is one of the worst ad hoc explanations in my opinion. First of all, this only attempts to answers questions about male homosexuality. Where does it leave lesbians? One would have to believe that nature would produce a change in certain alleles. If there is a change in gene frequency, what are the calculations, what are the mechanisms, where are the loci of said gene, etc? But most condemning, if nature has a will to stiffle the human population by allowing for homosexuality, it quickly makes no sense if their siblings are essentially bringing into this world the same amount of children as would be if her sibling was having children. It just doesn't make any sense. I'll just ask you outright: What is the meaning of life? If that is a bit too broad, is the universe meaningless? Can any real meaning be found in life? That isn't ad hom at all. Naturalists, by and large, are not concerned with spirituality or with anything other than what nature alone can provide as far as answers are concerned. If you stop merely at biological function, which most evolutionists tend to do, then there is no purpose outside of some drab existence. Like it or not that's what we're left with when life is assigned merely a naturalistic point of view.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

But it still does nothing to provide a reason for why homosexuals exist. Even in the article you provided from PubMed, which I've read before, concedes that homosexuality are paradoxical from an evolutionary standpoint. It goes on to share information that of their tested subjects, most homosexual males had older siblings and that the fecundity of their sisters were more highly elevated than that of their heterosexual counterparts. That does nothing to refute the disposition of being weaker by the terms of natural selection. Brothers and sisters aren't the same person. Though they are most genetically similar, they aren't the same person. If there is meaning then there are reasons for why nature does it what it does. Would you say that because there is such a thing as homosexuality that it quite literally serves a function that benefits nature holistically? I don't know why the surprise that many naturalists tend to view people as just blobs of well-formed molecules? I mean, the literature disassociates itself from any kind emotional connection and just gives us a stale and clinical approach to humanity. Instead of the mind, some might be inclined to view the it as if we're just a collocation of firing synapses in the frontal cortex and the hypothalamus... You know what I mean? Which is why I said,

quote:

---

Like it or not that's what we're left with when life is assigned merely a naturalistic point of view.

---

My invisible pink unicorn accidently stepped on my fairy. The wake is tomorrow at 10:00 Pacific Standard Time. You're invited if you want to go.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Yeah, no kidding. In fact, most people engaging in sex don't do so for procreation. That seems fairly obvious or the contraceptive companies would go under and so would abortion clinics. My question is how and why does biological evolution reconcile this? Jaderis, perhaps this is all too close to home for you, so I understand why you might meet this with perturbation. Even still, surely, on some level, you can recognize this as being problematic. If nature removes the desire to procreate with members of the opposite, isn't that counterintuitive of everything we know/think about evolution? The sociobiological implications are difficult to resolve.We have people that impute everything to instinct and come up with ad hoc reasons for why an organism does what it does. Well, if nature actually removes the instinctual drive to breed, what does that say about the homosexual? It tells me that its purely sociological, not natural. You either have to drop evolution or disassociate yourself from the notion that homosexuality is a 'natural' occurrence. And if dropping one or the other seems impossible, then at least you could recognize, from an evolutionary point of view, that homosexual is inferior. Remember, I'm not the one making the rules about evolution-- evolutionists have already done that. They implicate themselves. I understand how you could think that. I really do. But at the same time, a serial rapist may not view his activities as inherently wrong. He may delude himself into thinking that his baser inclinations are just his instincts telling him that he must procreate. Obviously, his 'feelings' on the matter don't make the reality. Indeed, many do. Why, then, would nature go against itself? Why would it instinctually offer the desire for children, but not the natural way to have children? Again, this is looking at the scenario from a naturalistic point of view. If you read the early manuscripts on the interpretations of Darwinism, there is a definite sense of purpose ascribed to it. The purpose of life assigned by these people was that life only has one function, and that's to survive, and to delay the inevitable by procreating. In essence, by disseminating our genes, we somehow become immortal in this way. Now, neo-Darwinists no doubt realized the implications of such a philosophy and in a sense, wised up and sought to expand its meaning. After all, something this meaningless is difficult for beings who strive for meaning to contend with.It brings into question any number of things, such as, but not limited to: Homosexuality, morality, abortion, contraceptives, murder, stealing, eugenics, and on, and on, and on. Indeed, something more praiseworthy than such a trite and insipid concept doesn't speak to us as social creatures. So, there has been a shifting of the goalposts for a number of years. And now it seems that many evolutionists are trying to subvert that classical approach of Darwinism in an attempt to be politically correct. Well, nature isn't P.C. And if there is no objective morality, what do you they care about being politically correct when it comes to nature?

quote:

---

But if nature stymies ones will to procreate effectively, which, I think, everyone here could agree that so much evolutionary emphasis is on procreation, what does that say about the homosexual? Are they not a dead end, solely from an evolutionary standpoint?

---

Then you can't call it instinct. These are a contradiction in terms. You can't in one instance say that sex is instinctual only to turn around and impart rules to it.And consider this as well. If this sexuality were really about love, then it shouldn't matter what sex anyone is, right? Therefore, if you remove the will to procreate, but only have homosexual sex as being measured strictly for sexual gratification, then where does love fit in? I don't understand that. Yes, but finding ways around nature doesn't help the evolutionary argument for why homosexuality exists at all. Yes, you could be artificially inseminated, you could adopt, you could have sex with a member of the opposite sex, but I'm talking about nature. Why would such a thing be selected for. Why would nature subvert itself? That makes no sense to me.

quote:

---

Why supplant what nature has done? If homosexaulity is as natural as being born with green eyes, why try to go against the grain?

---

No. Because the answer is obvious. They 'want' different colored eyes, not that its natural. Perhaps we could make the same argument for homosexuality. ..... There it is. There is nothing left to discuss. Homosexuality is either a choice, directed by societal influence, or nature is in confusion which undermines the basic principles of evolution. The two are incompatible.

quote:

---

If nature gives the desire for water by creating thirst, why try and go against that? If nature gives us the desire for food by designing hunger pangs, why go against that nature?

---

You can only fast for so long. My point is, if nature gives us instinct for a reason, what reason is there to select homosexuality? And how far down does the rabbit hole go as far as what we get to decide is instinctual and what is societally induced? Couldn't we make the argument that old men desiring fertile, pubescent females is merely an instinct to procreate with the healthiest stock? And yet, we have a moral aversion towards pedophilia. Again, couldn't we make excuses for rape as some evolutionary basis? Just how far down the does the rabbit hole go? Where is the line drawn in the sand? Because logic would dictate that the two premises are incompatible. I only caricature what is presented to me. I didn't make up the rules, I'm just showing people how the two will naturally cancel each other out. There is always a "why." Everything happens for a reason. No, not I.... They. Again, I didn't invent the story. And yes, there is a "why" in the story of evolution. You have a stomach. Why?: To break down food. Why do you need food?: To convert it to energy. Why do you need energy?: So you can animate yourself, and so on. And when you break it all down, we are left with the big questions, like, "Why are we here." Nothing, just happens. It all happens for a reason. Now, whether that reason was intentional or not is a matter of theological debate. Nature may not care what happens one way or the other, but if natural selection is a non-random function, then weaker/stronger applies the the argument. I have. And if you read the OP's points, he has met homosexuals that have said the same thing. In other words, they are inventing reasons for why they are a-okay with nature and that they are actually beneficial. Sounds like purpose to me.Anyway, can't finish the rest now... gotta head out the door.It was a good post. Sorry I didn't it after you initially wrote it. Somebody bumped the thread so I got a chance to read it.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

Try not to be too offended Dameeva. This was an old thread where we were discussing the plausibility of homosexuality as being the product of a chance mutation.Moreover, it should be especially inoffensive to you in the event that you are an evolutionist. I mean, think about it. From an evolutionary point of view, we ALL would be the product of mutation.So, please, try not to be too offended by that. It was an honest inquiry not intended to ruffle anyone's feathers, but rather an attempt to answer some fundamental questions.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Well, I appreciate that, but if we do pick this back up, I'm pretty sure you are not going to like the things I say-- most people on EvC don't.But I will try to explain my position as best that I can in a way that is least offensive. I should warn you that no matter what I say, it tends to be completely manipulated around here. I would say listen to what I'm actually saying, not what some of the more extremist members think I'm saying through a thinly veiled disguise.Interestingly enough, Jaderis, a homosexual, is the one person that seems to understand me the most, even if she ultimately disagrees with me.The point is, the apology might be short lived. But I will try to explain my view without completely irritating you. Children? Are you equating homosexuals to children, you bigot! (Sorry, inside joke) Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Uhhhhh, well, I guess if you think so. I'm not sure what he said that you think is a "load of shit," but I should add that the quote has nothing to do with my post. Its an option available to all posters in the "Profile" menu.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

But isn't there? Since the entire theory of evolution is based on sexual selection, what purpose would it serve nature to select a specie that does not have the desire to reproduce?Obviously the argument extends to survival, since virtually all theories concerning evolution revolve around reproduction.That begs the question: If nature, having no mind or will, does not intend for homosexuality, rather, that it simply happened, couldn't we reasonably view homosexuals to be inferior in evolutionary terms?In Darwin's estimation, life is only made clear in terms of winners and loser, living or dead. Where then does homosexuality fit in that? Discrimination doesn't factor in to the equation when we are speaking about nature. This is an argument from nature. There is no political correctness in nature. It simply is what it is. So for this once, lets not make emotive arguments and just answer the questions appropriately-- which is from the view of science-- nothing more, nothing less.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Umm, well, okay...A woman and a woman are incapable of producing offspring. A man and a man are incapable of producing offspring. If they want to copulate with only members of the same sex, that would prevent the desire of reproduction.*sheesh* what kind of a doctor are you? I'm aware that they are physically capable of reproducing. The issue is with the socioevolutionist trying to come up with compelling reasons for why things are the way they are. Homosexuals seem to be the very antithesis to the theory of evolution, as it literally, serves no evolutionary purpose to be one.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt