Phi for All

Basically, the study is saying that women (and men, actually) find facial hair (or the lack of it) attractive only when it's uncommon. They like the guy with the beard or the clean-shaven face only when he's different than everyone else. In terms of evolution, it's a negative frequency-dependent selection.

As far as sexual selection goes, according to a recent study, beards and mustaches are only considered attractive when they're rare. If all the guys have beards, it's not as much a factor.

I think, therefore I spam. --Bill Descartes

You're making some pretty expansive conjectures based on a tiny statistical sampling. Two votes isn't a conspiracy, and you've already invented a "they" whose way you're keeping out of. It's good that you value your reputation but I think you're overreacting.

Absolutely not.

Why make it personal? Maybe it was something you said.

Except the math works when trying to figure out what happened before a human birth, which would seem to erase any absurdity in assigning birth as the starting point for human life.

It's a terrible thing to lose a child and you have my deepest sympathies. I can't imagine the pain. I know it's hard to think about now, but we humans actually do much better in dire circumstances than we believe we do. We remember the heartache and the suffering, and we forget the part where we were able to cope with all the stress and get on with our lives. We forget the daily battle to heal, but we do heal in time. Please remember this when you think you aren't handling things well. I've been thinking lately about this concept of "I wish we could have had more good times together". Is there anyone you love that you couldn't say that about? Isn't this really just reviewing the good times you had and then feeling bad because they weren't unending? Let's be completely realistic here. The good times you have with someone are just that, they were really good times and should be remembered that way. I think we enjoy being with those we love and we look forward to the next time, and when there won't be a next time, we turn that anticipation into regret that we didn't get more time. Perfectly normal, I guess, but it makes you feel perfectly awful.

If the biological angle requires a point where life has begun, I would have to agree with those who say birth is the logical starting point. It's the point where the new human is separated from the host, and since all the elements involved were already considered alive, any time before this would be arbitrary and inaccurate. Life never "started" because everything about it was already living, but the human part starts at birth, it seems to me. I can understand the argument that children under 2 years aren't fully human, but I think this adds more arbitrariness.

My comment wasn't a criticism, really. I think it's harmful to our society to choose conception or fertilization as the moment we consider life to begin in humans, because it would mean our laws would be applied much earlier than I think is feasible. If all choices are somewhat arbitrary, shouldn't we choose a more biological standard for determining life?

Are we harmed at all by basing this arbitrary definition of when human life begins on biological considerations rather than religious or political ones?

This means every miscarriage needs to be investigated by the police to determine if the mother is guilty of murder. Who pays for this?

I think it doesn't make sense because of a bad definition of "logic". Most people's definition of logic these days is, "An analysis that makes sense to me". That's not really logic, that's more like confirmation bias. Logic is more math-based. I think you really mean reason, or rational thinking. And I think you'll probably find that rational thought and reason are products of a high intelligence, not the other way around. I think it's our capacity for intelligence that lets us reason things through.

! Moderator Note Commander, please don't delete your parts of this discussion. It makes it even more difficult to explain your idea.

So, a corruption of definition for emotional satisfaction? We certainly see a lot of that between science and the rest of the world. "Theory" and "logic" have been mangled to the point of uselessness when trying to talk to someone not aware of their more precise meanings. The average person will defend their "theories" and their "logic", and I get the impression it's often because they want to thumb their noses at the geeks who got better grades in school. There are also lots of attempts in the advertising we're blasted with to equate "natural" with "the way things should be", so they can point out that you aren't doing it right. Advertisers like to blur the definitions of words to favor their clients, so we end up believing that their butter is somehow "natural", chemicals are bad, and people would like you more if your house smelled like a pine tree. Perhaps I'm the one corrupting the definition of natural. It does seem to be a word we invented to draw a distinction between what we can make or affect and what just happens anyway within our ecosystems. I'm concerned though that this perspective has fostered an us vs them mentality, that we're at odds with nature/the elements/whatever you choose to call the real world we don't seem to consider ourselves part of. Nature on one side, anything related to humans on the other. How does this help us?

I see your point. But isn't it quite a bit like that now, with humans viewed as unnatural on their own world? The majority of us have adopted processes that have proven harmful to the environment, and I wonder if part of the cause isn't this attitude that we're a contaminant by default. All I asked for was improvement, not some ideal state. I don't think it's a pipe dream to want our species to feel more connected to the world around us. And as this world's arguably most intelligent species, I think we'll make wiser decisions if we consider ourselves part of the natural order on Earth.

This is part of what I'm arguing against, this idea that we should define "natural" as "unaffected by human intervention". I think this definition encourages us to ignore our responsibilities as part of this world, to consider ourselves above nature or the masters of it and that it's our right to do with it what we please. If anything, I believe we should consider ourselves nature's greatest custodians, more responsible because we know better. But I don't think we'll ever embrace this until we consider ourselves more part of the world.

With the phrase "that which is natural", aren't you Begging the Question that there is an optimal state of nature that simply doesn't include us? And that the definition of unnatural, in this case, is simply "something bad a human can do that no other species can"? I understand the irreversible degree of alteration argument. Does that mean this problem is scalable, that there is a point where what we're altering or how we're altering it can be considered as natural as a pack of wolves hunting out all the available prey in an area? Or are we taking some of our worst fears, like we're going to somehow alter ocean currents or or irradiate the planet or muck up the atmosphere to the point of devastation for many species, and applying that concern to lesser instances of alteration? I'm not sure about this. There are lots of issues where it's not just a conservative minority that hold these views. GMOs are pretty controversial. Many educated people feel we're thwarting "survival of the fittest" by keeping alive those who would've been too weak to survive in the wild. Many folks have no problem with using fossil fuels but consider nuclear power unnatural. We're allowed to treat an infant for certain maladies once they're born, but it's considered unnatural in many cases to intervene while it's still in the womb. Leaving the planet is also considered by many to be unnatural, even if they don't oppose efforts to do so. It seems like the concept affects folks on lots of intellectual levels. Perhaps it's partly the tool-use capability. An automobile is a tool for travel like a house is a tool for shelter or a coat is a tool for warmth, but when compared to a horse, the car becomes unnatural, and so do the house when compared to a cave and the coat when compared to fur. Are tools by definition unnatural? Is a knife less unnatural than a rifle? Is a knife made of wood or bone more natural than one made of steel?

Virtually anything any other species does is considered to be natural, part of nature. But for some reason, many humans consider some of the things we're capable of to be unnatural, or "not as nature intended" (we've had some discussion in other threads about this, but not in a thread primarily about it). They claim that by extending our lives through medicine, we're doing something nature didn't intend us to do. Childbirth through C-section is considered unnatural, even though it accounts for almost one birth out of three in the US. We can modify the plants we grow for greater yields, disease resistance, and other benefits, but this practice is now being considered unnatural (even though we're almost the only animal that farms for sustenance to begin with - why isn't farming itself considered unnatural?). Why do they assume there's a "normal" process in nature, one that we can violate with our meddling into things other species can't meddle with? Aren't they simply judging nature as it is without us, and then trying to claim we don't fit in? Isn't this what "living off the land" or "getting back to nature" means, doing things as much as possible like other, less intelligent species would do them? I don't understand why other animals get ripping claws and huge tearing teeth and warm fur and extraordinary strength and agile flippers and keen senses, but when we use our greatest ability, our high intelligence, to figure out how to adapt better to our environment, it's viewed as being outside nature. I think it may seem unfair to many people, like our intelligence gives us too much of an advantage over other species, but it's one of the attributes we got from evolution, and it seems wrong to me to feel guilty about it. When you add it to our opposable thumbs, tool-use, cooperation, and communication skills, it's observably impressive, but is it unnatural? If this sentiment is somehow guilt driven, it seems to me that it would be smarter to embrace our intelligence and understand our impact on nature as an integral part of it, rather than as outside of it. If we can use our intelligence more wisely, can we also agree that our intelligence is one attribute that distinguishes us in nature, just as the shark's teeth, the bird's wings, the bear's claws, all give them advantages in their environments and distinguishes them in nature? Btw, I put this in Other Sciences because I didn't want to restrict responses to just political or psychological considerations.

Misrepresentations like the OP sort of straddle the fence, imo. I think it's intentionally deceptive to offer an assertion extracted from one's posterior, but that sort of behavio(u)r is a hallmark of the incompetent.

Many people treat what they hold sacred like a fragile eggshell you aren't allowed to breathe on, yet their faith in it is supposed to be strong and unbreakable. Pointing out this kind of dichotomy should restore reason, but in many people it just makes them more insistent Why do you generalize it like that? I thought they were very clear that they want to remove the influence of religion from science education and public policy. That's not the same thing as simply crusading against religion. I'm sure Dawkins would prefer it if everyone gave up their religion, but his foundation has specific goals regarding public monies and programs. Any democracy or republic that separates Church from State should support this.

It's easier to hold on to an irrational concept if you ignore the reality that refutes it. I've wondered before if many people shun science and reason, not because it requires a great deal of intense study, but because deep down they know it would mean giving up something they've always believed in irrationally. It would explain some of the goofier anti-science sentiments.

And since the creationist site that made this claim had access to all this information, it's left to the reader to decide whether they made a bad, uneducated guess about chromosomes and reproduction, or they deliberately lied to sneak their arguments past those who trusted them to be using actual facts.

I think Dawkins' approach is like power-cleaning a dirty wall. You hit it with a strong enough stream of reality and hope to knock off the bits that were only just clinging on anyway. It's neither the best approach nor the only one, just a perspective that will speak to some and not to others. When you're trying to reach out to emotional people in a rational manner, there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Exposure to different perspectives is almost invariably good, imo, especially when we're talking about believing so strongly in something you can't really know.

I think one has to decide what atheism means in a world where many of those around you are believers in one faith or another. Are you adamantly opposed to believing in god(s), or do you just choose not to participate? You don't have to be an anti-stamp collector, you can just choose not to collect stamps. I have no problem with people having a belief in a personal god, as long as they aren't making decisions that affect me based on their religion. I wouldn't want to elect a politician who thought he was doing his god's will by starting a war or legislating against groups his religion doesn't like. If someone wants to believe God cured their cancer, if it speeds their recovery, then fine. I know people like that, I'm related to people who believe like that, that their faith is somehow stronger and more reliable than all the trusted medical science. I smile and nod when they tell me how God cured them. And I DON'T tell them how lucky they are that they had cancer instead of an amputated leg, because God seems to be pretty good at curing cancer but has NEVER grown a leg back for anyone.