Skip to main content

How culture affects perception of the world

Most of us have heard of married people with kids suddenly "coming out" as gay to their families. It seems strange and counter-intuitive that they would have invested so much of their time and energy on a relationship that would have never worked out, and that they would have brought children into that situation. But something drove them on. Of course, aside from severe legal or social action in places where homophobia is widespread, most people in the above situation would be faced with others perceiving them differently.

When the environment communicates to you that a heterosexual married life and children is the best bet, then what is it a best bet for? Presumably, the widespread fear that humans will go extinct otherwise, or that that's what nature or "God" wants us to do. And of course, if we upset either, they will come and get us.

Yet, humans are overpopulating the Earth, and there is no sign that anything will wipe us out. If anything would, surely the way to prevent it is to become an astronomer, colonise Europa (Jupiter's moon) and avoid the imminent death of planet Earth. Presumably. These are all assumptions upon which best bets are placed. And the key point is that assumptions differ by culture.

So of course when the assumption is that humans will be wiped out by gays (as impossible as it may sound), the best bet is thought to be marriage and children. This drove our imaginary gay person to keep at it with their relationship and family.

What made them come out? Either:
1. the assumptions in the environment changed, e.g. a change of attitude in people, or
2. the environment itself changed, where the assumptions are different, e.g. gay marriage legal in certain places
3. the person created their own separate environment isolated from the external one.

Due to the popularity of an old post, The evolution of the human body, I have thought of creating a series called Top2Toe in which the human body is analysed in detail, taking into consideration all things like fingers, nails, arms, eyes, hair, skin... and everything in between. So check back later and don't forget to subscribe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it? The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?". Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about? CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan , which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why: 1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely

Principles of Evolution - Sexual Selection

If it weren't for sexual selection, evolution itself would be a passive process. Natural selection isn't sufficient in the evolution of life, because it does not deal with predictions of future selection pressures. For example, if a massive natural disaster were to wipe out every single collared pigeon on Earth, then there would be no process in place to bring the collared pigeon back to life. Since the development of the pigeon from its ancestor must have taken a very long period of time, it is a really inefficient idea to just let the pigeon's fate hang by chance. Admittedly, if all members of that species were to be wiped out, the chances of it being reintroduced would be very close to zero. So, how does sexual selection work to avoid such fates of death of a species? Firstly, let's establish that sexual selection is not the process of reproduction, or self-propagation, but the process by which certain properties are chosen over others to deal with potential future

What is the point of evolution in bacteria?

This is yet another question I was asked. The idea was that bacteria aren’t becoming complex organisms “on the way”, so what is the point? This is like another question often asked by sceptics “If humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are no monkeys becoming humans nowadays?” The Earth is a rich place, rich with resources, rich with diversity. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, it’s not like monkeys are living in the past and we are living in the present. We all live in the present, and monkeys have spent time evolving like we have. Monkeys are adapted to their environment, and we are to ours, and bacteria are to theirs. Could you live off bananas, in a tree? Could you turn water, carbon dioxide and light into food? No. There are many different niches on Earth, each of which is inhabited by different organisms. Hot springs, dry deserts, deep oceans, high mountains and an airplane are all very different places. Why would there only be one species?? We are complex for our en