|
|
|
|
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/1/2009 9:23:21 AM | all fatalists would fully believe there is absolutely no choice in the matter.
nature or nurture? [do you nurture nature? is there a nature to nurture?]
as for attraction ... I have read that we develop most of our likes and dislikes of people's looks, mode of speech [tones and inflections and language], sounds and smells around the same time we are learning to talk.
The code book of attraction is being formulated when you are an infant.
[B.F. Skinner covers some of this in basic sociology]
Now I personally feel that personality traits will lead to most of the experiences you have in your life ... [Gay to me is still a word meaning joyous and carefree]
Homosexuality was considered natural in ancient Greek e where so much of our basic learning has come from .... funny we didn't lean that .
Homophobia does fit in with racism and hate crimes arise from it.
It would not exist if we didn't try to hide sexuality of all kinds in our society.
The idea of fat people having sex or your grand parents etc... are all hidden and consequently cause bad reactions from juvenile and immature people.
If genetics can influence personality ... then they will influence sexuality.
Are you an a**hole because of genetics or upbringing. [bit of both is what I think]
| |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/1/2009 6:53:58 PM | Generally, there are three influences on the development of the individual – genetic, environmental, and social.
We’re born with approximately 100,000 genes that, under ordinary circumstances, do not change, the expression of these genes on behaviour is dynamic. Some genetic influences are expressed early in development, but others are manifest many years later. The expression of genetic influences are very malleable and responsive to the social environment.
I believe that most homosexuals are “born homosexual.” Embryology teaches that early embryos all start out as female. At some point in early gestation, if the chromosomes determine the fetus to be male (XY pair of chromosomes), this female embryo is altered by the genetically programmed addition or androgens. Testosterone, in particular, instructs the embryo to develop male characteristics. In their absence, the embryo continues to develop into a female (XX pair of chromosomes). This is not to be confused with being “born heterosexual.”
Scientists already know that the characteristics which make us "think" either as males or females is located in the hypothalamus. Autopsies showed that the relative size and configuration of this gland is different in males and females. Further research indicated that the hypothalamus in homosexual men was significantly different from that of "straight" (heterosexual) men. How could environmental or social factors affect the size of a gland in the brain?
To claim that gayness is strictly a choice is a demeaning simplification of human complexity and an antiquated prejudice.
Namaste....... | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 2:00:35 PM | I believe it could be one or the other or even both for that matter.
ie//
I believe it is a "choice", even outside of the genetic field, hence why there are some people who don't come out, not because they are scared to come out, but they don't come out because they don't feel it is a proper feeling. Of course different people have different reasons for not coming out, but I know of one and have heard of a few who don't come out because of the unnatural tendancy they feel.
I believe it is genetic. I don't know much about science, but I can tell you that I have known of children(I'm talking ages 5,6,7,8; one may argue that would be social, but most children at the age of 5 and 6 don't have a significant social life in terms of being aware of what is gay and what is not) who have these gay-ish tendencies, and certain actions, and the way they speak. Mind you, these children that I know of are not gay, but it will be confirmed in about 10 years if I still see them in my life.
I believe it is social. One thing I will say is, "curiosity kills the cat". This can also be related to genetic or choice. If a person is subjected to and made to feel a certain way, I believe that could change a persons thoughts and make them believe they are something they are not. From my personal experience, I was always made to feel like I was dumb, so I always acted upon that. Yeah to this day I'm not the sharpest knife in the toolbox, but I will say that the fact I have built so much confidence over the last couple of years, has made an individual who is more aware of this world, has learned a lot more than what I have ever felt I was able to learn when I was in school. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 4:43:02 PM | OP
I do not know and dont care! I am sure in the future they will discover if genetic or social then offer a "cure" to those who feel they want/need it. Until then (again) I dont care, not a choice I need to make and none of my biz....Live as you are. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 5:00:34 PM |
The expression of genetic influences are very malleable and responsive to the social environment.
If I understand correctly you are saying that our interaction within our social environment can influence our gene expression?
I believe that most homosexuals are “born homosexual.
So are you saying that, for "most" homosexuals it is genetic?
Yet there is not definitive proof (shown) of specific gene expression for homosexuals.
What about the "others" that do not apply to the "most" catagory? How would they be defined within their relationship? How would they have aquired their preferences?
If, as you state our social environment influences our genetic expression, how then is this done? What would be the process?
And as we interact with our social environment, in this interacting, does this not require some small amount of self determination? | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 5:30:25 PM | Merrylass
That makes no sense.
OK, you obviously have little understanding of evolution of man.
If you look at our closest of cousins they are widely based on the alpha system so if a male were born with a 'gay' gene it's highly unlikely he would have risen to alpha status to be able to pass on this gene.
I could go on and on about why a 'gay' gene would have evolved of the human makeup but if you don't understand about genes or evolution there's very little point.
Wow. Where do people come up with these things?
Do you have any understanding of how chemistry works at all?
My theory actually supports the Kinsey Scale but mine would be 0 - 100
I would suggest further reading on your part on the development of the fetus, how important hormones are and why hormones and sexuality are so closely linked. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 6:32:59 PM |
So are you saying that, for "most" homosexuals it is genetic?
Yet there is not definitive proof (shown) of specific gene expression for homosexuals.
There is no proof of specific genes for homosexuality, so it follows that there is no proof of homosexual gene expression. But the evidence for a multi-gene theory is undeniable. Homosexuality could not exist unless it was selected for via Natural Selection. If it were not transmitted genetically to any degree, it would cease to occur in nature, and genetic traits predisposing homosexuality would have been eliminated long ago. Homosexuals still have children – this fact is not in dispute. Furthermore, the most manifest heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. The genes for these traits are thought to persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction, therefore, homosexuality persists. There is no denying this fact from an evolutionary standpoint.
What about the "others" that do not apply to the "most" catagory? How would they be defined within their relationship? How would they have aquired their preferences?
I’m pan-sexual, but not bi-sexual - this is not a self-promotion declaration. I have no idea whether my sexual preferences are genetic or social or influenced by pop-culture. But I would only ever consider marrying a man rather than a woman, so perhaps that decision is based in cultural or social factors. Although I was never repelled by homosexuality, I never developed a same-sex interest until my 30s. I never experienced a “defining moment” in that regard either. I would imagine the psychodynamics are unique to the individual. The degree to which homosexuality is ever a social construct is a whole other topic.
If, as you state our social environment influences our genetic expression, how then is this done? What would be the process?
To some degree erotic attraction is created by the individual. If you take the viewpoint that homosexuality can be a social construct, then it follows that there are no predetermined scripts for sexuality at all. Perhaps there is a psychological process that allows people to move from the “gender role” identification to a “sexual identification.” Perhaps the mind captures previously disavowed sexual experiences. There is a gradual process for some people from straight to possibly bisexual, to probably bisexual, and perhaps to homosexual. Social environment would play a role here as different cultures produce different identities.
And as we interact with our social environment, in this interacting, does this not require some small amount of self determination?
Of course it would. However, what day did you wake up and decide to be heterosexual? Was there conscious self-determination involved? Could any amount of social interaction change or alter that preference? Why or why not?
Be well...... | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 8:45:42 PM | Mrgoodman2
I have done a small bit of genetic research in my time, and I will admit to not being an expert, so had to do a bit of reading up on your propositions.
I discovered that there has not been any specific research done on general nutrition and gene expresion during fetal development.
Now as such, there is no direct evidence to support the claim that nutrition directly effects the devolpment of the fetal brain. It has always been asumed that so long as there is no nutritional deficiency, the fetus would devlop normally.
However I can see the merits of your theory and belive it needs testing. If general levels of nutrition do indead have an effect on fetal devolpment then it would provide a massive leap in our understanding, not just of homosexuality but a massive range of psychological conditions.
Unfortunatelly I am currently engaged in other studies or I would ask your permision to present the idea for funding and mice research. Perhaps in a few years I will ask.
If you look at our closest of cousins they are widely based on the alpha system so if a male were born with a 'gay' gene it's highly unlikely he would have risen to alpha status to be able to pass on this gene.
Unless the gay gene had a secondary expresion that was ussefull. For example if its first expresion was homosexal behavior, but its second evpresion was masivly increased testosterone levels (providing increased muscle growth, ect.) then the gene would be extreamly ussefull.
Alternativly the gene could also code to prevent a problem that was comon amoungst our ancestors (something that many genes do). For example, the gay gene could dramatically reduce the amount of testosterone produced. In this scenareo, there would be a gene coding for testosterone that caused over production, and one that did not over produce tesosterone. Adding the gay gene to the first group would create a balance and result in normal testosterone production, and in the group without the over producing gene, it would cause a testosterone deficincey.
It is possible there a gene set (there definately is not a single gay gene) that together results in homosexuality, but it would have to be a ighly complex set.
What we can say for certain is that homosexuality runs in famillys, is more prevelent in second children (and third, and so on) and is a preferance rather than a choice. All of which sugests that homosexuality is congenital, people are born with it.
Beyond that we can not say anything more difinative for certain. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 8:53:59 PM | To some degree erotic attraction is created by the individual.
But homosexuality is not an erotic atraction though, it is an amouros atraction and there is a huge difrence in these two.
A person with a foot fetish will be sexually excited by shoes or feet, but will not wish to mary a shoe, they are still romantically atracted to a person.
Homosexuality however, expresses itself as a romantic atraction to the same sex. This is why homosexuality was removed from the list of sexual disorders, because in this fasion it difers from all other issues of sexuality.
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ Excelent example, bravo, claptiy clapity clap. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 9:09:20 PM | I think it is most likely that homosexuality is primarily the result of multiple genes in action, with secondary social/environmental influences. Half a dozen genes could each separately provide a survival advantage, but on the rare occasions they occur together, they interact with a likely result being homosexuality. The combination may not be evolutionarily advantageous, but because each gene separately is, the combination continues to recur.
A simple comparison is sickle cell anemia: two recessive genes are fatal and the individual is not likely to reproduce. In most of the world, two dominant genes will be the norm, with recessive genes slowly "weeded out". In the tropics, principally Africa, the story is different. Two recessive genes are still fatal, but the combination of recessive and dominant genes gives protection from malaria. Variety is favored because the extremes are at a selective disadvantage. They still, however, continue to "pop up". | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/2/2009 9:38:03 PM |
But homosexuality is not an erotic atraction though, it is an amouros atraction and there is a huge difrence in these two.
Not necessarily. I’ve had erotic attraction to some women, but without any kind of romantic attachment. I don’t wish to marry a woman. Nevertheless, sexual relations with the same sex are considered homosexual acts, are they not? Into what category would you put straight men who are turned on by pre-op transsexuals, but who are repelled by the thought of having sex with a man, who for all intents and purposes, looks and acts like a man? The point I was trying to make in my earlier message is that there are varying degrees of homosexuality, and many people aren’t wholly heterosexual. There are many latencies in the human psyche.
Answers.com defines “erotic” as being:
1. Of or concerning sexual love and desire; amatory.
2. Tending to arouse sexual desire.
3. Dominated by sexual love or desire.
This is why homosexuality was removed from the list of sexual disorders, because in this fasion it difers from all other issues of sexuality
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because it is not a mental disorder. I would also argue that a run-of-the-mill foot fetish is not a mental disorder, unless your fetishism precludes normal behaviour, and is therefore a paraphilia. If you enjoyed your foot feetish, also liked other forms of sex, were satisfied with your sexual life, and didn't do anything nonconsensual, you weren't mentally ill. But if you needed feet exclusively to get off or wanted to marry your shoes and were distressed about it, that would be considered a mental illness.
Namaste...... | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/3/2009 6:39:18 AM | Bright1Raziel
I've done a little more digging and you're correct, there's very little evidence to support my theory.
My starting point is assuming that homosexuality ISN'T genetically fetal, purely and simply because same sex couplings have very little benefit on an evolutionary path.
Having said that, Frogo has put a spanner in the works 
Our sexuality isn't confined to a certain section of the brain, it's encompassed as a whole which does point to the hormones recieved while developing and why we see such varying levels of sexuality.
It's hard to see how a genetic sequence could account for such variation.
I've been giving it a little more thought and although nutrition can and does play a major part in the development of the fetus, imbalanced or inappropriate hormone levels might simply be due to the mother not producing the right hormones at the right time.
And now I've gone full circle
This inappropriate production of hormones during pregnancy might simply be a genetic mistake/difference in the mothers reproductive genome.
This mistake/difference would have very little baring on an evolutionary scale.
If proved correct, I suppose the most starkling revelation of my theory is:
If a mother were closely montiored to ensure a fetus received the correct and appropriate amount of gender specific hormones thoughout it's developement then we could guarantee the sexuality of our children.
The next questions would be: Would we? Should we? and would it mean an end to homosexuality? | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/3/2009 7:57:49 AM |
If a mother were closely montiored to ensure a fetus received the correct and appropriate amount of gender specific hormones thoughout it's developement then we could guarantee the sexuality of our children.
There are numerous difficulties with this approach. I am presuming that if you are proposing montoring the hormone levels, someone downstream would use some set of assumptions to decide that some level of some hormone needed human intervention. So, assuming that we wanted to undertake this, what would be the process? Logistically it would be difficult since the sex organs are visible around the 12th week of development in the fetus, and the cell differentiation is occurring much earlier. Some women don't even know they're pregnant by the 7th week.
Secondly, what are the "appropriate amount of gender specific hormones" at any given stage of development. Male and female fetuses both receive androgens and estrogens in varying amounts during their development. What type of delivery system would be proposed for this? Increasing certain hormones during pregnancy also have the effect of increasing or decreasing blood flow to the placenta, which may have undesirable outcomes.
Hopefully we learned not to muck about randomly with hormones during pregnancy. I hope we learned something from the diethylstilbestrol (DES) fiasco. DES is a synthetic form of estrogen, a female hormone that was used to prevent miscarriages. It was in itself, a "miscarriage." It often had devastating second and third generation effects on both baby boys and girls.
DES was correlated with the development of cryptochidism and cysts, increased rates of prostate cancer, and lowered sperm count in adult males. Studies of heart disease, cancer, and immune diseases in DES males continues. Baby girls who were exposed to DES are believed to have increased cancer risk and abnormalities of the reproductive system, as well as fertility problems.
Kinsey's data suggests that 90% of men are heterosexual and 95% of women are heterosexual. I've read that the estimation of numbers of people with a gender identity disorder ranges from 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 100,000. I'm suggesting that the riskiness of applying hormones in utero to avoid gender identity disorders would therefore be considered a "deus ex machina."
Personally, I can't imagine anyone willing to undertake this. I certainly wouldn't. I would accept my child for what he or she is, which is probably something you were alluding to in the last part of your posting.
Be well.... | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/3/2009 3:25:52 PM | I'm sure all the details will be worked out, but it's a biological thing. One thing many people don't know is that many experiences you have in life can turn on or off certain genes. Environment has a biological impact.
Religious wacko ideals and my comments on them (mainly in reference to guys, me being straight guy):
1. "Being gay is a choice" - Complete and utter nonsense. I'm hetero, and I couldn't possibly fool myself into liking dudes. Sorry. I don't have that choice. It's not my choice to like chicks. It's not my choice to not like eating rotten meat. You can tell some guys are gay when they're very young -- you know, the kid who skips rope with a pink colored one until he's 14 -- and not predisposed to anything 'gay' -- yeah, he's gay. Yep, it was biological. Mr. Religious Zealot, are you saying that it's a temptation you're resisting? Or that you could be put in a position where you could end up making out with a guy named Frank and chugging his rhubarb? (shudder)
2. "Being gay is an action" - Wrong. Hetero or Homo is about attraction, not an action. So I wasn't heterosexual UNTIL I lost my virginity or landed my first kiss with a gal? Liking girls and only girls -- I'm hetero, whether I'm getting any action or not.
3. "Being gay is a temptation" - Stupid. Not for straight people, sorry. For those in which it is a temptation -- you ARE gay and always will be, sorry. Again, just because after a guy gets dumped by his girlfriend and sulks for a year and just watches porn, doesn't make him less hetero because he's not getting any physical action from the ladies -- it's not an action, it's an attraction. If it's a temptation, that means you have an attraction, which means you're gay. For those of us who don't have that temptation (straight), are you saying they can become gay? Can you, Mr. Religious Zealot?
4. "Being gay is a fetish" - No. For some half-bi people, sure, maybe the 'gay side of the plate' could be see something close to that, if they are afraid to have one of their legs out of the closet. For straight people? No. It's not being straight, so therefore, it's not a fetish for straight people. It's not something 'naughty' to do for us straight people. You have to be WIRED differently to actually enjoy and be attracted to that sort of stuff, sorry. Maybe you, Mr. Religious Zealot see it as something 'a little out there' like Dominatrix stuff in which it just doesn't turn you on -- but for me, it's conceptually different than that -- it's against my inner desires and it's a repulsion emotionally.
Bottom line -- you're wired differently if you're gay. It's a biological thing, which to some degree, could be brought on thru environment with guys. I think there's a difference between girls and guys tho (we ARE different genders, so that's not such a fantastic thing to say). I think many girls are predisposed to have the potential of being a little bi in a side-dish sort of way.
Many deaf women are bi or gay. Deaf guys? Not so much. It's an interesting example of social effects with women... along with "Prison Gay" where one is cut off from the opposite sex -- some may gain sexual satisfaction from the same sex. Personally, I think they're slightly bi and that just comes out. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 7:48:48 AM | Honestly, I can't see where anyone would choose to be gay. Choose to be alienated in most cultures, and in some you could be subject to violence, death, even legal sanctions. I see no way that this could be a "choice." I also don't see the harm that ensues because of it, nor why it should be classified a "disorder."
But so what if it is a choice? What difference would that make? Being gay isn't harmful to anyone, in and of itself. What pains me is that many gays I've known seem to think they need an excuse for their persuasion, or (more often) their families need one to excuse their gay family members' "gayness." That's the real sad part. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 12:05:15 PM | this is all so patronising and totally judgemental.
why can't people just be themselves and leave and respect others to do the same?
Bruce uk
 | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 1:42:50 PM | I think the biggest problem with this question is that it doesn't define "gay".
Do you mean two people of the same sex? or two people of the same gender?
Gender and Sex are not the same thing. One is a biological the other is a cultural construction. From the Euro/North American perspective we focus on same sex relationships as being gay. XY and XY or XX and XX and gender doesn't really matter.
(if a male-bodied woman transgender and a female bodied woman have a relationship we consider it to be 'straight')
Also, how do we define attraction? If a person is an XY transgender, they are female gendered but male-bodied. So if they're attracted to a person who is male-bodied, isn't that normal? They're mentally female, they should find the male body attractive, doesn't that make them straight?
You can't answer a question like this because you haven't defined what you're discussing. It would be like me saying 'is pie better than cake?' without telling you which pies and which cakes we were discussing. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 1:48:41 PM | I believe that sexual orientation is due to our biology. Whether or not it is hard coded into our particular DNA or just occures during our fetal development due to some reason we don't understand is another question since both sexes originally have the potential to develop into either sexual organs.
Would you classify every difference from the "norm" as a disorder? Some people are born with natural talents that you can't trace to familial heredity or influence . Does that mean they have a disorder?
Any species is always going to have a gene pool that is mostly of one sort but there will always be genetic variations. A gene pool without them is considered unhealthy. Unfortunately I think because it's part of our instinctual nature to be tribal we often find it hard as societies to accept and embrace these differences in our makeup and our behaviors. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 2:06:15 PM | I don't think it is necessarily based on our genetic code. I think it is something that is determined during fetal development. There are actual studies that show that boys with multiple older brothers (straight) are more likely to turn out to be gay that those without as many older brothers but that's just statistical.
I think the bigger question is why in today's day and age we can't find it in ourselves to be able to accept other people who just happen to be different from ourselves? In truth we are a lot more similar than we are different. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 2:15:22 PM | | There's a difference between what turns a person on specifically such as a fetish and your sexual orientation. Ideas about what is sexually stimulating are learned behaviors dependant on memory imprinting of certain feelings. You associate certain actions with the same emotions that existed when you first experienced them. Thus, unfortunately you can cause a child who has been sexually abused to be sexually turned on by the same horrendous behavior years later. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 2:33:50 PM | | I have heard a few argue that being gay is a mental illness. If that was the case, then what was the trigger event (the cause)? I believe it has to be something hard-wired. In simpler terms, genetic. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 8:44:25 PM | Those damn liberals will kill ya Nemrut....geesh I tell ya.
I would say:
If we are human, being superior that is superior beings, we are capable of being what ever want to be if we want to be it bad enough...its a matter of will. Homosexuals, alcoholics, pedophils, criminals, straight, etc. ..........be what ever the hell you wanna be. Make a choice and be responsible for your (third person) choices....period. Don't be a coward and put it off on a gene and say that you had no choice in the matter.
Predisposition....yep, we all have it. Ability to makes choices...yep, we all do that too.
Personally I think the bears have a the right idea about a relationship....monogamy ...senor/senorita  | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/4/2009 9:04:28 PM | Clearly, liking men is a deviation by choice which requires correcting that choice. Women should decide to be male and acquire an interest in females instead.
After all,
If we are human, being superior that is superior beings, we are capable of being what ever want to be if we want to be it bad enough...its a matter of will. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/7/2009 6:20:56 PM | Jesus F*&^%ng Christ, would everyone stop with the damn homo phobe bs, did Bush and his administration brainwashed everyone or do we have a bunch of bible freak dimwits around SA?????????????
Look at frickin' history, since the beginning of time, the greeks, egyptians, etc, there has been gays, needles to say the greeks were not the most manly civilization but that is not the point, the point being is that these were individuals who lived their entires lives being gay, now back in those days there were no studies, science was in its infancy but yet the demographics of gays was relatively the same as now days, this only tells me that this is a product of genetics not their environment. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be gay??? that is the stupidest, most right wing bs I've ever heard, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against????
The American Society is lacking common sense, WTF????
If you're wondering, no, I am not gay, I love the women body more than anything in this world but sometimes I feel that we as a society are moving backwards, no, there is no frickin' cure, WTF again?!?! Put the damn bible down and put on your thinking hat.
We as a society need to stop regressing being a result of bigotry, ignorance and discrimination.
If you're argument has to do with inmates, I think that has to do more with the social structure of the correctional system, basically if you're someones ****, then you're under their control, is a social hierarchy thing and something beyond my comprehension.
You are born gay, period. | |
|
| being gay - genetic or social
Posted: 1/7/2009 8:25:47 PM |
If you look at our closest of cousins they are widely based on the alpha system so if a male were born with a 'gay' gene it's highly unlikely he would have risen to alpha status to be able to pass on this gene.
I could go on and on about why a 'gay' gene would have evolved of the human makeup but if you don't understand about genes or evolution there's very little point.
Your theory is, simply, false. We haven't bred infertility out of humanity, have we? It may be that the infertile or gay individual doesn't pass on his DNA (though plenty of gay people marry anyway, ya know) but the genes that created the infertile or gay person get passed on through their relatives.
If your basic assumption, is that your 'alpha system' means that all 'non-functional' genes have been bred out, then clearly your basic assumption is false. We in fact may now have more diseases, conditions, and congenital ailments than humans ever had.
If we are human, being superior that is superior beings, we are capable of being what ever want to be if we want to be it bad enough...its a matter of will
I promise you that no amount of will will turn you into a Michael Phelps or a Lance Armstrong. Nor will you become a Halle Berry or a Gwynneth Paltrow. You are what you are. You can work real hard and get somewhat better at being you but you can't become something you are not. You are not able to rewire your body.
BTW, who says we're that 'superior'? We're killing ourselves off and destroying our home in the process. Then again, the 'alpha' theory of buddy up there may hold for our species; we may end human existence thus preventing passing on all our insanity. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
