Skye

I'm from Australia, and moving interstate and in the new state you have to do a undergraduate degree of some sort (and get very good grades) before doing medicine. Medicine takes 6 years, then 3 years internship. Thats TWELVE years before you are qualified. If you want to be a specialist it's another 3 years after the medicine degree. I don't think I would even take it if I were offered, though I'm not in too much danger of that.

If I were only thinking of the women of the world then I guess I would have to say yes. But isn't one of the clones always evil, and hell-bent on killing the other?

Ok I agree but I mean something like 'genes that are selected against less than their competitiors' because they have the effect of predisposing the person to homosexuality. Either way of writing it I don't think you agree. On the recessive gay gene: If say 10% of people (1 in 10) are homosexual than that is alot higher than the incidence of any recessive diseases which I think are at the most 1 in 1000. There would be a limit for the frequency of a lethal recessive gene, beyond which they would combine more often and reduce there numbers back down to the limit. The 10% figure seems pretty high though, maybe it includes reproductive bisexuals. Are there any advantages in being bi over hetero?

So is there a suggestion that a genetic basis for homosexuality can be selected for? If so, how? I can understand that a genetic basis for homosexuality can be maintained by having other effects that counteract the energy spent on homosexual lovin' but just not that being gay is an advantage. But it's not even close to selectively neutral, so it's not like you can drift over to the Isle of Lesbos. I guess I might be different to others but I don't spend much time thinking wistfully of having some children, or maintaining my genes within our gene pool. I do spend a fair amount of time thinking lustfully of having sex though. Our genes requirement to be reproduced isn't directly translated into a desire to reproduce them. It is more abstract and complicated, maybe this makes it easier for environmental factors to modify our sexuality, acting on the abstract psychological cues that we have to turn us on

I'm not a history buff but I don't think female leaders in the past have shied away from war. I don't really think women are less inclined towards conflict, but theres the physical aspect which can be intimidating in a woman-man scenario, and the cultural aspect with either woman-man or woman-woman. In a all women world neither of these would have much effect. Perhaps a good model for the society, and especially government, would be a women-dominated profession, or maybe a all girls school. Probably not that much different. Personally I think the differences between men and women are variations on a theme, rather than yin and yang, mars and venus. (Interestingly I read in an old National Geographic that for ancient South Americans Venus was the god of war.)