Can Humans Be Animals?
Apr. 7th, 2010 01:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaI'm reading this (quite long) article in the NYT titled: "Can Animals Be Gay?.
What an absurd thing to ask.
That question simply reflects science's own human biases.
Who said the life sciences were objective?
Nothing can be spoken about without subjecting it to human categories. We're so used to everything being about us, that we've forgotten that we're a part of it.
Evolution is a tricky beast. It's the reason why it's so interesting, fascinating and ultimately, the only way you can explain the diversity found within animals (human included).
The biggest misconception regarding Evolution is that we're going somewhere with it. That the changes that have gone on for billions, millions and other large sums of years, are progressive. There is no proof, nor is there any way to prove, that our gradual changes, that the fact that we have retained an appendix and Wisdom teeth - commonly known as vestigial organs, as far as this lay person is aware - are positive changes. That is, we have no way of knowing whether we are actually better equipped for "survival" than we used to be.
"Survival of the Fittest", "Natural Selection" - possibly the two most disastrous terms to ever be written and adopted into human functionalism.
I'm digressing.
Are humans animals?
We are, but we don't actually like to acknowledge it. Clothed apes, filled with shame and superstition, walking upright (I mean, how ridiculous is that?!), grooming ourselves into an inch of our lives - plucking hairs, building muscles, eating, not eating, building houses - skeletons of buildings, roads, civilisation.
Yeah, we're natural all right.
In the article linked above, observations of same-sex couplings, "confuse" scientists. It keeps cropping up in almost every animal group that is studied and gosh-darn it, it doesn't make any bothering sense on the Darwinian level?
For what "good reason" are these animals mating without the purpose of procreating?
I suddenly have the urge to count the brand names of various condoms sold in my dad's pharmacy, as well as the dozens of brands of hormonal birth control currently found on the market.
Where was I?
Ah yes. It all happens for a purpose.
Well no, not really.
That would be "Intelligent Design", which uhm, is utter bullshit. It's a bit like Creationism, but pretends to be proper science, where as Creationism, in the words of Eddie Izzard, "is fucking magic!".
Articles like this are important. It's important that scientists acknowledge that they subjugate their research in human assumptions. Generally speaking, these assumptions will be "default" assumptions:
Heteronormativity, sexism, monogamy, sex=reproduction... I mean, when you read quotes like this:
Boggling.
Utterly, utterly boggling.
The "invisible hand" of Darwinism?! I don't even know what to say about that, except that everyone knows even the "free market" is dominated by who has more influence and power and that nothing happens without someone, somewhere, making a decision.
The article also mentions that some of these scientists that encounter the phenomena don't consider the social implication of the "naturalness" of homosexuality.
Personally speaking, I find it highly irrelevant to try and find some kind of parallel between human sexuality and other animals sexuality - because other than the fact that we reproduce, sometimes and not all animals (humans included) - we can't actually ask them how they identify!
Or even if they bother thinking about and beating the idea to death like we humans do.
I mean, while it is the fact that we like to fuck people of the same sex that has the bigots riled up, it's also the "culture" attached to same-sex desire, which is considered, hedonistic, destructive and counter-hehe-productive.
Identity based on sexuality is a very new concept. It's tied in with what was the brand-spanking new medical practice known as Mental Health. Psychiatry, psychoanalysis, criminology - sheesh, talk about vestiges.
Before that, we only had behaviours. Oh there were moral sanctions over certain behaviours, but it wasn't an identity to be a "Sodomite" or a "Molly", it was recurring bad behaviour.
Thanks to science, a "Sodomite" became a type of person. A different "kind" of human.
A Homosexual.
"Unnatural" is the outcome of moral indignation of human based prejudice. We've yet to find scientific method to explain that.
Would we ask a bird, whether it had tried to mate with the opposite sex, just to make sure it wasn't "wrong" about it's assumptions regarding itself?
I'm imagining a woodpecker pecking an ornithologists' eye out.
I think there's a lot to be learned by observing the way the animal world conducts itself sexually. I think we learn more about our own assumptions and the underlying bias of the theory more than anything.
It's always been my hope that the diversity found within every specie, including our own, will break down the self-inflicted categorical boxes.
Evolution needs a revolution, in a way. Functionality doesn't explain everything, beside it being a reductionist theory, it confuses our puny human brains, because so many things simply do not fit in that system of thought.
I like Evolution. It's the only thing we've got right now. But reading articles like this (and trying to tie it with the spit worthy "discipline" of evo-psych) make it evident that we have a long way to go before we're willing to stop viewing animals as lesser humans and be willing to view ourselves as animals just like the rest of them.
If animals can have that kind of diversity, complexity and je ne sais quoi, we humans really need to get over our superiority complex we've developed simply by being able to feel shame.
What an absurd thing to ask.
That question simply reflects science's own human biases.
Who said the life sciences were objective?
Nothing can be spoken about without subjecting it to human categories. We're so used to everything being about us, that we've forgotten that we're a part of it.
Evolution is a tricky beast. It's the reason why it's so interesting, fascinating and ultimately, the only way you can explain the diversity found within animals (human included).
The biggest misconception regarding Evolution is that we're going somewhere with it. That the changes that have gone on for billions, millions and other large sums of years, are progressive. There is no proof, nor is there any way to prove, that our gradual changes, that the fact that we have retained an appendix and Wisdom teeth - commonly known as vestigial organs, as far as this lay person is aware - are positive changes. That is, we have no way of knowing whether we are actually better equipped for "survival" than we used to be.
"Survival of the Fittest", "Natural Selection" - possibly the two most disastrous terms to ever be written and adopted into human functionalism.
I'm digressing.
Are humans animals?
We are, but we don't actually like to acknowledge it. Clothed apes, filled with shame and superstition, walking upright (I mean, how ridiculous is that?!), grooming ourselves into an inch of our lives - plucking hairs, building muscles, eating, not eating, building houses - skeletons of buildings, roads, civilisation.
Yeah, we're natural all right.
In the article linked above, observations of same-sex couplings, "confuse" scientists. It keeps cropping up in almost every animal group that is studied and gosh-darn it, it doesn't make any bothering sense on the Darwinian level?
For what "good reason" are these animals mating without the purpose of procreating?
I suddenly have the urge to count the brand names of various condoms sold in my dad's pharmacy, as well as the dozens of brands of hormonal birth control currently found on the market.
Where was I?
Ah yes. It all happens for a purpose.
Well no, not really.
That would be "Intelligent Design", which uhm, is utter bullshit. It's a bit like Creationism, but pretends to be proper science, where as Creationism, in the words of Eddie Izzard, "is fucking magic!".
Articles like this are important. It's important that scientists acknowledge that they subjugate their research in human assumptions. Generally speaking, these assumptions will be "default" assumptions:
Heteronormativity, sexism, monogamy, sex=reproduction... I mean, when you read quotes like this:
The Yale ornithologist Richard Prum told [Jon Mooallem]: “[Evolutionary Biology] is a lot like economics: we have a core of theory, like free-market theory, where we have the invisible hand of the market creating order — all commodities attain exactly the price they’re worth. Homosexuality is a tough case, because it appears to violate that central tenet, that all of sexual behavior is about reproduction. The question is, why would anyone invest in sexual behavior that isn’t reproductive?” –— much less a behavior that looks to be starkly counterproductive. Moreover, if animals carrying the genes associated with it are less likely to reproduce, how has that behavior managed to stick around?Emphasis mine.
Boggling.
Utterly, utterly boggling.
The "invisible hand" of Darwinism?! I don't even know what to say about that, except that everyone knows even the "free market" is dominated by who has more influence and power and that nothing happens without someone, somewhere, making a decision.
The article also mentions that some of these scientists that encounter the phenomena don't consider the social implication of the "naturalness" of homosexuality.
Personally speaking, I find it highly irrelevant to try and find some kind of parallel between human sexuality and other animals sexuality - because other than the fact that we reproduce, sometimes and not all animals (humans included) - we can't actually ask them how they identify!
Or even if they bother thinking about and beating the idea to death like we humans do.
I mean, while it is the fact that we like to fuck people of the same sex that has the bigots riled up, it's also the "culture" attached to same-sex desire, which is considered, hedonistic, destructive and counter-hehe-productive.
Identity based on sexuality is a very new concept. It's tied in with what was the brand-spanking new medical practice known as Mental Health. Psychiatry, psychoanalysis, criminology - sheesh, talk about vestiges.
Before that, we only had behaviours. Oh there were moral sanctions over certain behaviours, but it wasn't an identity to be a "Sodomite" or a "Molly", it was recurring bad behaviour.
Thanks to science, a "Sodomite" became a type of person. A different "kind" of human.
A Homosexual.
"Unnatural" is the outcome of moral indignation of human based prejudice. We've yet to find scientific method to explain that.
Would we ask a bird, whether it had tried to mate with the opposite sex, just to make sure it wasn't "wrong" about it's assumptions regarding itself?
I'm imagining a woodpecker pecking an ornithologists' eye out.
I think there's a lot to be learned by observing the way the animal world conducts itself sexually. I think we learn more about our own assumptions and the underlying bias of the theory more than anything.
It's always been my hope that the diversity found within every specie, including our own, will break down the self-inflicted categorical boxes.
Evolution needs a revolution, in a way. Functionality doesn't explain everything, beside it being a reductionist theory, it confuses our puny human brains, because so many things simply do not fit in that system of thought.
I like Evolution. It's the only thing we've got right now. But reading articles like this (and trying to tie it with the spit worthy "discipline" of evo-psych) make it evident that we have a long way to go before we're willing to stop viewing animals as lesser humans and be willing to view ourselves as animals just like the rest of them.
If animals can have that kind of diversity, complexity and je ne sais quoi, we humans really need to get over our superiority complex we've developed simply by being able to feel shame.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 01:21 pm (UTC)I read the book for a piece of fan fiction, which you can read here because I think I haven't put it on AO3 yet. I have the characters argue about the question of whether animal sexual behavior is part of GLBT studies.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 05:21 pm (UTC)One of my profs in my queer classes spoke briefly about "Biological Exuberence", I had planned on looking into in at our Library. This has definitely given me incentive to do so.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-08 07:18 am (UTC)That said, to make the Bloodhound Gang far more famous than they ever should be, "You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals."
no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 07:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-20 10:16 am (UTC)I feel that the general public is often behind on science (one of the reasons religious based crack-pot "theories" like creationism are gaining a foot-hold) is because science, actual science not the pop-evo books that pop up, is that the language is inaccessible at times.
I love science, life and exact, but I feel like an idiot when I try to tackle what I'm being told and I know that more often than not this is a language barrier.