human sexual selection

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

human sexual selection

Postby NullSpace » Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:57 pm

See from 8:38 to 9:54 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mISetzhs ... re=related

The guy posted a problem. Namely, why the human brain is so complex in contrast to brains of other non-humans when the only condition is being able to sustain oneself. The brain consume about 20% of the energy from a normal human. Non-human have brains that consume less energy. The solution comes from sexual selection of mates that are smart.
NullSpace
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sat Jan 01, 2011 3:17 pm

There was an interesting documentary on Tv a while back regarding this issue of human brain size - one fascinating point was that human apes all share a certain genetic defect that is not shared by non-human apes/primates. This specific defect was found when comparing human to non-human primate DNA while they were working on sequencing the genome and trying to see where the differences lie between us and our other primate friends.

This specific genetic defect causes abnormally small size of the jaw muscle - so when the defect appeared those with it had much smaller and less powerful ability to chew. The surprising thing was when they found out that all modern humans have inherited this gene, that it has spread throughout the entire species.

The hypothesis is that with smaller jaw size, there is less stress on the skull to hold the muscle and counteract its amazing strength - in non-human primates the jaw muscle is immensely strong, and this requires a very thick skull in which the skull plates are "welded" together very strongly, with great rigidity so the jaw muscle has something to work against, to hold it securely while it is contracting its immense strength. This in turn prevents a great deal of growth in size of the brain during fetal development as well as after birth, because the skull plates come together faster and fuse more solidly; they do not expand and move as human skull plates do.

So, if this theory is correct we owe our capacity for the potential for larger brain development in part at least to a genetic error that shrunk the size and power of our jaw muscles, thus allowing the skull plates to stay loose and separate for longer, thus allowing for greater development of brain size.

Of course, sexual selection for brain size (as regards intelligence) is probably the case as well. This would simply be survivability expressed through whichever multitudes of behavioral, linguistic or otherwise cues that general intellectual ability would reveal itself through, and by virtue of the link between overall intellectual capacity and individual survivability thus becoming key differentiating criteria in mate selection.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby turtle » Sat Jan 01, 2011 3:56 pm

Three Times Great wrote:There was an interesting documentary on Tv a while back regarding this issue of human brain size - one fascinating point was that human apes all share a certain genetic defect that is not shared by non-human apes/primates. This specific defect was found when comparing human to non-human primate DNA while they were working on sequencing the genome and trying to see where the differences lie between us and our other primate friends.

This specific genetic defect causes abnormally small size of the jaw muscle - so when the defect appeared those with it had much smaller and less powerful ability to chew. The surprising thing was when they found out that all modern humans have inherited this gene, that it has spread throughout the entire species.

The hypothesis is that with smaller jaw size, there is less stress on the skull to hold the muscle and counteract its amazing strength - in non-human primates the jaw muscle is immensely strong, and this requires a very thick skull in which the skull plates are "welded" together very strongly, with great rigidity so the jaw muscle has something to work against, to hold it securely while it is contracting its immense strength. This in turn prevents a great deal of growth in size of the brain during fetal development as well as after birth, because the skull plates come together faster and fuse more solidly; they do not expand and move as human skull plates do.

So, if this theory is correct we owe our capacity for the potential for larger brain development in part at least to a genetic error that shrunk the size and power of our jaw muscles, thus allowing the skull plates to stay loose and separate for longer, thus allowing for greater development of brain size.

Of course, sexual selection for brain size (as regards intelligence) is probably the case as well. This would simply be survivability expressed through whichever multitudes of behavioral, linguistic or otherwise cues that general intellectual ability would reveal itself through, and by virtue of the link between overall intellectual capacity and individual survivability thus becoming key differentiating criteria in mate selection.



very interesting. why do say it was an error.
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:02 pm

I believe it was no different than any regular genetic mutation, a common replication error that occurs for various reasons and which is the mechanism of genetic evolution itself - of course most of these "copy errors" phase out by causing the unsurvivability of the organism or not impacting its survivability one way or another. In this case, however, the random mutation gave rise to increased survivability and thus spread throughout the species, eventually contributing to drastic evolutionary change.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby turtle » Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:12 pm

Three Times Great wrote:I believe it was no different than any regular genetic mutation, a common replication error that occurs for various reasons and which is the mechanism of genetic evolution itself - of course most of these "copy errors" phase out by causing the unsurvivability of the organism or not impacting its survivability one way or another. In this case, however, the random mutation gave rise to increased survivability and thus spread throughout the species, eventually contributing to drastic evolutionary change.

very good. thanks. you are an expert in evolution. i want to see more.
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:35 pm

I am not an expert, I only have a general or basic knowledge in this regard.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:29 am

Three Times Great wrote:Of course, sexual selection for brain size (as regards intelligence) is probably the case as well. This would simply be survivability expressed through whichever multitudes of behavioral, linguistic or otherwise cues that general intellectual ability would reveal itself through, and by virtue of the link between overall intellectual capacity and individual survivability thus becoming key differentiating criteria in mate selection.

Well, not so much individual survivability as well as genotypic survivability. Evolution's not about the survival of organisms but of genes, and not of individual genes but of gene types (a reproduction of a gene is as good as the "original").
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:57 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:Of course, sexual selection for brain size (as regards intelligence) is probably the case as well. This would simply be survivability expressed through whichever multitudes of behavioral, linguistic or otherwise cues that general intellectual ability would reveal itself through, and by virtue of the link between overall intellectual capacity and individual survivability thus becoming key differentiating criteria in mate selection.

Well, not so much individual survivability as well as genotypic survivability. Evolution's not about the survival of organisms but of genes, and not of individual genes but of gene types (a reproduction of a gene is as good as the "original").


Because genes reproduce generationally through the mechanism of the individual organism, it is pertinent to talk about the survivability of that individual organism, as well as of the species of which that individual is a part.

"Evolution" is just the name we have for this process of growth and change, it captures a process taking place on many levels, and if desired the genetic level may certainly be seen as the predominant one in this regard. But just as gene types (forms) evolve only through the likewise evolution of their individual genetic "parts" (individual genes), the genetic level itself evolves through and not without its higher counterpart, the organic level, because without successful survival behaviors on the organic level genes themselves, or the genotypical forms to which individual genes give rise, cannot and do not reproduce or evolve.

In effect, it is all one process with many involves pieces and parts; separating them out in any rigid or definitive manner can be helpful in conceptualizing what is going on, but it also tends to obfuscate the unity and interdependency of the process as a whole.

For clarity's sake, we could say that no part or level of the evolutionary process is ontologically "primary" or superior to any other part or level. That is really the main lesson we ought to draw from the notion of evolution: mutual interdependence, reciprocal causality and (the attempt at) an ontological objectivity.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:19 pm

Three Times Great wrote:For clarity's sake, we could say that no part or level of the evolutionary process is ontologically "primary" or superior to any other part or level.

I disagree with this part. The gene is the unit of evolution. By "gene type", by the way, I just mean that a "copy" (reproduction) of a gene is as good as its "original". For instance, we have the code:

XBLA

This is the "original". We can reproduce it:

XBLA

These are twice the same "type" but not twice the same "individual" code (by definition).
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:48 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:For clarity's sake, we could say that no part or level of the evolutionary process is ontologically "primary" or superior to any other part or level.

I disagree with this part. The gene is the unit of evolution. By "gene type", by the way, I just mean that a "copy" (reproduction) of a gene is as good as its "original". For instance, we have the code:

XBLA

This is the "original". We can reproduce it:

XBLA

These are twice the same "type" but not twice the same "individual" code (by definition).


Yes. The genotypical form would consist of the specific order-combination of individual genes, but we must remember too that a single gene is itself made of lesser combinations of parts, nucleotides, and that these nucleotides are themselves composed of smaller atomic components. Each part of this process has its own mechanics and depends on every other level of the process for its own function. And even what we call a "gene" is itself arbitrary, a chosen grouping of nucleotide base pairs that we believe relate, as a whole, to a certain phenotypical expression via protein synthesis. A gene is not a specific unit, and it certainly is not irreducible, so the stretch that it is the "primary" unit of evolution is dubious, at best.

As far as the "selection" element is concerned, this in fact only takes place, evolutionarily speaking, on the higher level of the organism and its behavior within its environment. Selection is the process defined by the relationship between an individual and its environment, regarding survivability (successful procreative ability) and thus has meaning only over a group of individuals, from one generation to the next (i.e. at least two individuals, the minimum being one parents and its offspring).

For instance, an organism reproduces a fertile offspring; thus we have selection of the genes of that particular organism which are transmitted to the offspring. This is the most basic selection component to evolution. Genes themselves, among themselves, are not "competing" except through the higher medium of survivability of the overall organism with respect to the needs of its environment.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Pandora » Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:58 pm

Wow! You guys are so smart!

That's hot!!! Image
Image
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:20 pm

Again, I only disagree with a small part of what you're saying. In this case:

Three Times Great wrote:we must remember too that a single gene is itself made of lesser combinations of parts, nucleotides, and that these nucleotides are themselves composed of smaller atomic components. Each part of this process has its own mechanics and depends on every other level of the process for its own function. And even what we call a "gene" is itself arbitrary, a chosen grouping of nucleotide base pairs that we believe relate, as a whole, to a certain phenotypical expression via protein synthesis. A gene is not a specific unit, and it certainly is not irreducible, so the stretch that it is the "primary" unit of evolution is dubious, at best.

My point is that it's the gene which is "selfish", not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not "care" about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:41 pm

Sauwelios wrote:My point is that it's the gene which is "selfish", not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not "care" about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.


Your point.. or Dawkins'?
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:46 pm

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:My point is that it's the gene which is "selfish", not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not "care" about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.

Your point.. or Dawkins'?

Ah, jonquil, the self-proclaimed Enneagram type 4, meaning she's sooo concerned with originality. Why, one may ask? What does the need for originality imply?...
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:31 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Again, I only disagree with a small part of what you're saying. In this case:

Three Times Great wrote:we must remember too that a single gene is itself made of lesser combinations of parts, nucleotides, and that these nucleotides are themselves composed of smaller atomic components. Each part of this process has its own mechanics and depends on every other level of the process for its own function. And even what we call a "gene" is itself arbitrary, a chosen grouping of nucleotide base pairs that we believe relate, as a whole, to a certain phenotypical expression via protein synthesis. A gene is not a specific unit, and it certainly is not irreducible, so the stretch that it is the "primary" unit of evolution is dubious, at best.

My point is that it's the gene which is "selfish", not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not "care" about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.


Um.

A gene doesn't "care" about anything..
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:32 pm

Sauwelios wrote:What does the need for originality imply?...


Consciousness..
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:55 pm

Three Times Great wrote:A gene doesn't "care" about anything..

It does inasmuch as it's "selfish".
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:00 pm

Sauwelios wrote:My point is that it's the gene which is "selfish", not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not "care" about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.

jonquil wrote:Your point.. or Dawkins'?

Sauwelios wrote:Ah, jonquil, the self-proclaimed Enneagram type 4, meaning she's sooo concerned with originality. Why, one may ask? What does the need for originality imply?...

If you are taking your view of the "selfish gene" from Dawkins, then why not say so? I like the Enneagram, and I am a type four, and originality is important to me... that is true.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:01 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:A gene doesn't "care" about anything..

It does inasmuch as it's "selfish".

Ermm.. Sauwelios. Do you realize what is implied in this view?
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:35 pm

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:My point is that it's the gene which is "selfish", not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not "care" about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.

jonquil wrote:Your point.. or Dawkins'?

Sauwelios wrote:Ah, jonquil, the self-proclaimed Enneagram type 4, meaning she's sooo concerned with originality. Why, one may ask? What does the need for originality imply?...

If you are taking your view of the "selfish gene" from Dawkins, then why not say so?

If you're trying to accuse me of plagiarism, you're being ridiculous: it's common knowledge that the term "selfish gene" refers to Dawkins.
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:37 pm

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:A gene doesn't "care" about anything..

It does inasmuch as it's "selfish".

Ermm.. Sauwelios. Do you realize what is implied in this view?

That either a gene "cares" or it's not "selfish"?
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:00 am

Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:If you are taking your view of the "selfish gene" from Dawkins, then why not say so?

If you're trying to accuse me of plagiarism, you're being ridiculous: it's common knowledge that the term "selfish gene" refers to Dawkins.

No problem then.. if it's comon knowledge . . . .
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:02 am

Three Times Great wrote:A gene doesn't "care" about anything..

Sauwelios wrote:It does inasmuch as it's "selfish".

jonquil wrote:Ermm.. Sauwelios. Do you realize what is implied in this view?

Sauwelios wrote:That either a gene "cares" or it's not "selfish"?

It would have to be the former since you operate on the premise that it IS selfish. If a gene "cares," then . . . .
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:53 am

jonquil wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:A gene doesn't "care" about anything..

Sauwelios wrote:It does inasmuch as it's "selfish".

jonquil wrote:Ermm.. Sauwelios. Do you realize what is implied in this view?

Sauwelios wrote:That either a gene "cares" or it's not "selfish"?

It would have to be the former since you operate on the premise that it IS selfish.

To be precise, I operate on the premise that it is "selfish".

If a gene "cares," then . . . .

Yes, then?
"Eternal return is philosophy's _natural_ edifying teaching; it does not comfort itself or others with the next world ostensibly more perfect than our own; it says of the only world there is, or rather it 'shouts insatiably' (aph. 56) to the world as it is: Be what you are, be eternally what you are." (Laurence Lampert, _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, page 57.)

"Plato and Nietzsche share [...] the essential paganism of all philosophy, eros for the earth, and that is the deepest sharing, for each discovered that in being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for _eros_, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power." (Lampert, _How Philosophy Became Socratic_, page 417.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:33 am

Genes r us, as in they are reflective of our sociotel standing...
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
~Arab Proverb
Imageaes dhammo sanantano Pali: 'this is the eternal law'

The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.
User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate
 
Posts: 12853
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, England

Next

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users