Time Magazine reports an increase in homosexual politicians in Europe. It lists some example, most of them are males. To analyze this phenomenon from evolutionary perspective, the following preliminary questions have to be answered:
- Is there s real increase in number of homosexuals or is it only an increase in number of those who confess it?
- Is the number of homosexual politicians greater than the number one would expect from the prevalence of homosexuality?
Though there is no study on that topic, I guess the answer to the second question is YES. The normal prevalence of homosexuality is estimated 3-20% depending on how stringent the criteria of homosexual behavior are set, so 3% is for homosexuals who live in a stable partnership whereas 20% is for those who confess that sometimes in their live they had homosexual feelings. Given these figures the prevalence of true homosexuals in German Government clearly exceeds these estimates. Well statisticians may counter, it is a too small and not representative enough sample, and I agree more serious studies on this topic have to be conducted.
But assuming the prevalence among politicians is significantly higher than in the general population, which I’m convinced it is, then we have to study what favors homosexual males in selection. (I wittingly avoid the term election, as it is a more complex process.)
- Homosexual males are kind of immune against feminist attacks.
- Homosexual males are not regarded as competitors by other males.
The competition among politicians is fierce and often unfair, so no wonder that criteria as negligible as homosexuality become more important in selection than a politician’s actual capabilities to make seminal political decisions.
There are discussions among evolutionary biologists why flowering plants (angiosperms) so successfully propagated. In addition to what has been discussed at length: the better protection of their seeds and the help of insects and other animals to reproduce and spread. Newer discussions have also focused on their leafs: the better photosynthesis because of a sophisticated vein system, and better energy conservation during winter times because angiosperms don’t keep their leafs. There is, however, an other advantage. In times of heavy snow fall, the leaf-free angiosperm trees don’t carry as much snow and are therefore nor threatened to break by the heavy load. As a consequence gymnosperm tree are slim and tall while angiosperms can spread their canopy.
From the viewpoint of fauceir evolution theory these aspects are only secondary, the primary cause why angiosperms dominate vegetation on our planet is that they have better evolution control devices.
For a Darwinist to understand fauceir theory is probably as difficult as for a Creationist to grasp evolution by natural selection. Both are imprisoned in their axiomatic system. Though different it is still a cage for both of them.
Hence it is presumptuous to demand that a publication on fauceir theory should quote modern evolutionary literature. It is as farcical as demanding proper quotations from the bible when publishing heliocentric model of the solar system or Darwinian theory of evolution.
If Darwin were alive today, he probably would support fauceir theory. Oh no, he rather would have stolen it. Read more here.
The strategy to cope with problems differs among nations. For instance, Gipsies keep travelling, so always when problems grew too complicated they left the place. By contrast to Gipsies, Jews integrate into societies in which they live a successful life, but if conditions change to the worse they rather escape. They are good at evading problems, ever since their first documented exodus to Egypt and from Egypt back home. That’s why Jews are found throughout the world in almost every country, but that’s also why Jews are so inexperienced in solving problems at hand as now in Israel. Intending to stay there for a while, the nation has to go through a trial-and-error learning process. Not all of the decisions made by the Israel government are plausible to others, but they are plausible when considering the history.
On the other end of the spectrum to my best knowledge are the Russians who stay at home and loyal even if conditions are terrible, which has its disadvantages too, as it often encourages rulers to become cruel dictators.
Studying these differences may help us to improve ourselves and to reduce cultural friction.