Gian

I've read that the gravity of Titan at the surface is about 10% that of Earth. Plus I worked out that the atmospheric pressure at the surface would be like being in about 20ft of water here on earth. So explorers wouldnt need a pressure suit (altho they'd sure need an oxygen and temperature suit!) So presumably human explorers would be able to 'swim' along through Titan's atmosphere at the surface? Have I got this right? GIAN

Is there a way we can estimate light (lux) levels in broad daylight on Titan? eg would it be like a cloudy day here on Earth, dusk or no more light than with a full moon? Would the clouds be thin enough for an astronaut to see Saturn? Do the clouds ever part to give a clear sky? I've heard the sky would be orange with green methane rain. Would it always be foggy or could we see long distances? I'm an art student and I want to do a landscape painting of the surface of Titan cheerz Gian x

Thanks. Will have to follow this one up GIAN PS any replies please keep as simple as possible. I aint a scientist (yet!) GIAN

There may already be an answer here to this question, still looking through all the topics. Why is there male and female, and why is there sexual reproduction? Presumably there must have been some evolutionary advantage over asexual organisms. Any ideas what those advantages may be? thanks GIAN

I don't have any firm evidence that a repulsion about gay sex is endogenous I'm just thinking about it, that's why I originally put the question. In the video clip I entered above some football players are asked about what they feel about gay sex and I felt their repsonses were somehow more fundamental and endogenous than something learned. This is something Ive seen myself. Still thinking about it and reading all the stuff people have posted. Cheerz GIAN

Thanks for the feedback still reading through it. I don't like the image either, didnt know there was a way of concealing it. I agree I don't know if the nature/nurture debate which comes up in so many different contexts is really very useful. The're all one and the same -except that alot of people treat the 'nurture' bit as a sort of behavioural problem. The gay guy talking to the footballers in the clip seemed to think they were just eing unintelligent. I think it's a bit more fundamental than that. But still reading through all your stuff and links GIAN

what really started me thinking about this topic was this; from 03.55-06.44 and 09.33-end. I don't think these lads are afraid of being gay, or seen as such, nor do I think this is a learnt dislike. i think what they feel is endogenous.

Well I don't know about such selection taking that long; I have personality traits which Im told I got from my grandad who dies b4 i was born; and I suppose if my gf were equally quick to aggression our kids would grow up violent! And I think most people would agree personality traits are very visible from generation to generation. I emphasise again the societal/ political dislike of homosexuals is not what im talking about, i'm talking about phobia in the true sense of the word, an irrational aversion to gay sex the way some people are averse to spiders. I dont think that homosex-phobia, and the homophobia most people mean are the same thing. I know people who are totally gay-friendly, but if they were to see say gay porn go 'euuuggh!!!' (Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, dunno why, but it does bother alotta my mates.) Thanks for the reference I'll check it out later GIAN

Well you're creating a false dichotomy of homosexuality and reproduction, and of homosexuality and heterosexuality. There is no reason to assume that some levels of homosexual behavior would not convey a selective advantage or be selectively neutral. Those traits can could epistatically cause "pure" homosexuality (meaning total aversion to heterosexual behavior) which may cause selective disadvantage. But since the alleles can 'hide' in the population due to total aversion needed specific allelic combinations. Perhaps not, but people at the time may have thought of them as such. Eg if we went back to a town in say 12th century France, women may have felt (unconsciously) 'men who are averse to homosexuality are better than men who arent so I want that sort of man more.' This trait if it is genetic/enogenous may be advantageous economically and/or be part and parcel of lots of other traits conducive to social and economic prosperity and thus better survival. So such men reproduce and survive just that bit better. The reality is immaterial; it's the way people in the said village may have seen it which would influence outcomes. However, if such an aversion is no longer considered in today's society, homoerotic-phobia (aversion to the sight or idea of gay sex) I suppose may eventually breed itself out. GIAN

well i don't know, but i would have thought that more aversion to homosexuality would mean more potential reproduction. But of course it may not just be reproduction itself. Certainly there was a shortage of eligible men around for several years after WW1 although Im not clear how that affected reproduction levels However it may be what is SEEN to be better potential reproductivene potential rather than what is ACTUALLY reproductive potential. Men with what was thought to be an aversion to homosexuality would have been seen as better potential breeding stock by society in, say, the early middles ages, or in the prehistoric whatever the actual reality. (In those days for example it was believed that older men were incapable of fathering healthy children.) Thus natural selection of men who by a natural quirk were particularly averse to homosexuality -and seen to be- would cause them to survive that much better and so reproduce better, and thus become more dominant. Feedback any1? GIAN Yes I agree. What is commonly called homophobia is anything but an irrational fear, it's usually very calculated and socially constructed. My gf's mum is an arachnophobe. It's not that she hates spiders personally or goes on demos saying 'send spiders home.' But she screams and would probably jump through the window if a spider scuttles across the floor despite knowing the spider is probably far more scared of her than she is of it.

Thanks for a sensible answer. I agree; if there were not that aversion yes we wouldnt reproduce so well. So it does imply something endogenous. If that's accurate, people should not dismiss aversion to gay sex as 'hate' not those who feel it as 'queer bashers.' As people often say about gays, homosex-phobes can't awlays help it. Anyone knows of any research I'd be grateful. Cheers GIAN x x x x

Id no idea my simple question was going to generate such aggravation. Can we get back to the original point please? with the proviso that a phobia is NOT ( as far as I know) 'hate' -like racism- which is personal A phobia is an irrational aversion. Eg I know of no racist who has a phobia of ethnic difference, it is all nurtured I just wondered if the irrational aversion to gay sex - and i emphasise gay sex not homosexuality per se- by some straight men (many of whom are not actually gay-haters and may be well disposed) has some darwinian-style survival advantage deep within us. replies concise and to the point please. it's gonna take me weeks to read all the above. GIAN x x x

thanks Well precisely, I think the sight of two men having anal sex may be the "euuuugh" factor we feel when we see unappetising food which is actually perfectly good to eat. That's why the guys in the clip i've indicated above react the way they do. But then the 'icky' reaction to food no doubt developed becasue it protected us from foodstuffs which may be bad for us. Similarly with homosexuality Men being attracted to female homosexuality is different becasue it still involves heterosexual attraction to women which is what the reproductive intention of nature wants. I don't know wether any of this is accurate, Im hoping someone can point me to some research which will indicate it either way.

well as far as I know we don't need to follow genetic impulses, but what Im talking about is repulsion at the actual sight of it. This is an example of what I mean (from 03.55-06.44 and 09.33-end) I suspect that what these rugger players are feeling at the sight of gay intimacy goes deeper than social construction. They don't seem particularly badly disposed to gay men. As the guy at 05.19 says while accepting it, the actual sight of it seems to awaken some sort of revulsion which runs v deep.

These are just things ive heard, but i'll try to find some research for you

well until quite recently there wasn't. With very high mortality rates until the end of the 18th century men and women had to go on attempting to procreate all their lives in order to have 3 or 4 children who survived to maturity Thankyou. I'm still working through all the above life-stories, but Im just asking if there's any published research either way to indicate whether HOMOPHOBIA (NOT HOMOSEXUALITY!) is socially constucted or endogenous perhaps due to natural selection. And I don't know why enyone would want to vote me down for just asking. I only want to learn. Thanks to everyone for the sometimes lengthy life stories above, still working through them. I doubt children are born hating anyone or anything. These certainly are taught by society. Of course children aren't born hating communism! But surely both humans and other species have endogenous fears and aversions presumably there due to natural selection. If they didn't they wouldn't survive. I do know of one experiment where newborn kittens were found to be afraid of heights and had not been born long enough to have been taught it. May this not account for human homophobia in terms of improving the reproductive capacity of the species? Please if possible refer me to some published research in replies. I only want to learn. Gian

children are not sexually mature, and hopefully have never seen gay sex (or any sex) or even know what it involves. So this feeling of revulsion may occur whether they like it or not after puberty because of a genetic predisposition, and not solely as a cultural construct?

Well I only ask because some men DO seem to be repelled by the actual idea of say anal sex, even if they are well disposed towards gays -they may know some personally. I just thought natural selection might favour those who are not only heterosexual, but also distinctly turned off by gay sex. Probably a difficult thing to prove either way. This does not of course excuse any sort of active homophobia. evidence?? But the difference is that we are more 'aware' than the rest of the animal kingdom, so natural selection may favour those who are not only heterosexual but have a genetic aversion to gay sex. Doesn't mean that homophobia is acceptable of course.

Is homophobia a consequence of natural selection? viz heterosexual men are evolutionarily required to be attracted to the opposite sex because if they weren't they wouldnt reproduce and so the species wouldn't survive. At the same time the heterosexual male animal needs biologically to be reasonably repelled by homosexual sex, because if he weren't he wouldn't spend so much time reproducing and the species wouldn't survive so well; an example of Evolutionary psychology( as indicated by darwin and developed by William James et al..) I only ask because a lot of psycho-babblers, pundits and gay-rights people imply that homophobia is culturally constructed. But this doesn't explain why some heterosexual men are reasonably comfortable with the idea of gay rights and gay men, but are repelled by the sight of gay sex. Of course even if this is true, we don't have to act on our biological instincts. Any ideas anyone? (Im not a scientist) Gian

Im not a scientist, but as far as I know species have been evolving over about 3 billion years? But am I right that it can also occur quite rapidly, eg changes in the teeth of urban foxes, or hedgehogs acquiring roadsense? cheerz GIAN

Ah ok. So I guess a religious person could say that the nothing we know about could just as easily be called God as anything. Interesting.... Cheers Gian

Im not a scientist (would v much like to be) but in the meantime can someone sketch out for me in simple terms how the universe came from nothing as I believe Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins assert, OR point me to any easy-to-understand papers I can read. Cheerz GIAN

I'm no scientist but desperate to start learning so many thanks for the tip. Layman's science books would be a good place to start. I have a big gripe with contemporary science fiction in general and Doctor Who in particular. From what Ive seen of it, Doctor Who in the 70s at its best actually had...um...science in it! enough to get children interested. Nowadays it's just alot of designers showing off their design skills and no scientific content whatsoever. Sci-fi generally has gone rather stale and 'camp' over the last 20 years or so since its heyday in the 50s and 60s. One of the reasons I think is that -sacandalously- there has been no manned landing on another planet for FORTY years!! But of course this ignores what else has been discovered in cosmology by eg the Hubble telescope, and probes to the furthest reaches of our star system. It'll probably be just a dream but Im hoping to breathe a bit of life into sci-fi -that is to say breathe a bit of SCIENCE into science fiction!

Thanks, guess I need to study science properly many thanks for your reply. I never studied science properly in skool, guess I need to get on with it. The more I read the more intrigued I am.