@ Daphne

Also, with reference to this comment: “And how do you square increased infertility among couples who start trying to have children late – anything over the age of 30 is late – a situation which is now predominant in Western society, with the failure of ‘evolution’ to catch up with the social reality that having babies at 20 is no longer desirable or sensible?”

Actually, one of the main concerns of environmentalists/ecologists is that changes to the environment brought about by human activity are taking place at such a fast rate that living beings are not being given enough time to evolve and cope with the new changes.

For instance, global warming could bring about a rise of 2-5 degrees Celsius in the temperature of the oceans. This could mean that certain species – among which reef coral – would be wiped out, because they cannot evolve fast enough to cope with the new, higher temperature.

So, yes, you are right in observing that evolution cannot catch up with frantic human “development”, but wrong in the conclusion you draw from the observation.

Actually, Daphne, as usual your observations are very acute. Which is why this blog is so enjoyable!

Despite their acuteness, however, I must disagree. Evolutionary biologists argue – let us not forget that these are all theories – that the infertility in older women is aimed at increasing the investment in the children they would have already borne.

When compared to other primates, the size of a human baby is very large in proportion to its mother’s body, e.g. baby gorillas are much smaller than human babies, even though adult gorillas are heavier than adult humans.

The large size of the human baby poses veritable hazards to the survival of the mother during parturition

Evolutionary biologists, therefore, argue that it is more in the interests of the species if a woman stops being fertile in order to raise the children she has delivered with such danger to her own life, instead of keeping on giving birth to more children with the risk of dying and leaving those already born orphans.

[Daphne – Ah, but here’s the thing: the great mystery (and the one which turns your theory upside down) is that it’s women who have never given birth who have trouble conceiving after the age of 30-35. Women who have had children already in their 20s just seem to go on conceiving right through their 30s, and would have a child a year between the age of 20 and 44 if matters were left to their own devices.]

Modern-day infertility at a young age is being attributed to pollution. e.g., it has been found that Danish men have a lower sperm count due to environmental contamination from heavy industry.

With regard to infertile couples, of course you are right. They get gratification from companionship and sexual activity. One might add that they might even have an evolutionary role by adopting orphans.

[Daphne – The reproductive/evolutionary drive is to ensure the survival of ONE’S OWN genes and not those of somebody else or the survival of the human race in general.]

With regard to homosexual men’s relationship with their mothers, I admit you might have a point. Homosexual men could really feel close to their mothers because of their sexuality and not the other way round.

Nevertheless – and I will not add anything more, as this is not exactly my field – it would seem that the theory (these are ALL theories) on the relationship with the mother would stem from observation.

Lastly, however, I would add that it still does not make evolutionary sense to have homosexuals. It is a sheer waste of energy, and it would seem that Life is based on continuous energy saving.

[Daphne – I can think of many people who are an evolutionary waste of time and space and this assessment is not made on their sexuality.]

I repeat, however, that these are all theories. I have still to see someone bringing hard and fast evidence in support of all this.

As all theories, they ultimately boil down to “faith”. So much so, that in the 19th century, evolution was referred to as a Doctrine. The similarity in language with another field of human inquiry is uncanny, isn’t it?

@Joseph A Borg

Evolution is a term used to describe a process whereby creatures survive who have the characteristics needed to cope with the stresses and strains of a given environment.

There is therefore – according to this theory – an intimate relationship between the make-up of the creature and the purpose of that make-up.

Also, according to this theory, creatures are continuously changing – evolving – to cope better with changing environments, i.e. with new stresses and strains.

Evolution depends on reproduction: it is in the copying of genetic material that changes take place. If sex does not lead to reproduction, the species disappears. Not because evolution would not take place, but because, even more fundamentally, there would be no new (evolved) individuals which might carry on the species.

@ Daphne

1. The emotion you felt at the concert – lucky you for being there! – is the emotion of communality. It is an evolutionary device to make human beings (are other animals) feel part of a larger group, and that sense of belonging (of feeling one-ness) can lead to a greater probability of survival for the individual, given that humans are gregarious beings, and they stand to gain from group activities.

2. Indeed there is homosexual behaviour among other animals – but their community make-up is different from human society.

We should not mix sexual gratification with reproduction.

One can obtain sexual gratification by copulating without necessarily reproducing.

Reproduction depends on sexual gratification, but the contrary is the not the case. Sexual gratification does not depend on reproduction.

Sexual gratification is an evolutionary device (or so evolutionary science tells us) to ensure reproduction of the species, and a mechanism to cement the bond between the parents while the offspring is still young.

Sexual gratification by itself does not make evolutionary sense. Why should two humans spend all that energy (in courtship, copulation, maintaining the relationship, warding off mate poachers and other competitors) for mere gratification?

Let me give you an analogy: eating.

We all feel pleasure when we are hungry and we eat. The pain from hunger and the gratification from eating are not ends in themselves. They are meant to ensure that we eat, otherwise we die (as individuals). The pain generated by hunger induces humans to engage in hunting, or gathering of fruits, or farming – but it involves waste of energy and exposure to dangers.

Yet, it is necessary to engage in such acitivities to survive (intake of food = energy). The gratification one feels upon eating is a confirmation that the needs of the body have been satisfied. Therefore, the pain and the gratification are evolutionary devices meant to ensure the survival of the individual.

Similarly, the gratification from sex is not an end in itself (like in homosexual copulation), but is meant to ensure that we reproduce, otherwise we die (as a species).

[Daphne – Shoot all women past the age of 40 then (risk of disabled children followed by inability to have children at all) and free all men with wives over 40 to find teenagers with whom they can reproduce. What is the evolutionary purpose of a monogamous relationship once the woman is past childbearing years and once the children have been raised? You can’t attribute an evolutionary purpose to everything.]

Like binge-eating, like alcoholism, and like all other stress-releasing activities, homosexuality is mere gratification, without any real useful purpose (apart from the instantaneous and short-lived relief from stress).

[Daphne – We are never going to agree on this one. If to your mind the purpose of a sexual/loving relationship between two people is purely reproductive, there is no hope for older people or for the infertile, is there? And how do you square increased infertility among couples who start trying to have children late – anything over the age of 30 is late – a situation which is now predominant in Western society, with the failure of ‘evolution’ to catch up with the social reality that having babies at 20 is no longer desirable or sensible?]

The stress is probably due to the presence of external factors during childhood and unresolved conflicts with the father and a continued sense of loyalty toward the mother.

[Daphne – Oh, what rubbish, honestly. What came first, the chicken or the egg? People notice that homosexual men tend to be very attached to their mothers, and work out that this is what made them homosexual. The reverse doesn’t occur to them: that the reason some – definitely not all – homosexual men are very close to their mothers is BECAUSE they are homosexual, and homosexual men tend to get along better with women than straight men do (one of the ironies of your ‘evolution’).]

(That basically covers the input of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud to the world. Their followers updated their ideas, but the basic framework is still the same.)

You’re one to talk about depression, kev, with your giant inflated ego and cocksure attitude.

This is the most visible and dramatic tip of the iceberg of mental disorders where the vast majority have symptoms that are much easier to hide from family and friends until the proverbial ‘last straw’ and they do something foolish or worse.

The main point of my intervention is to share my experience supported by current knowledge of the strong interrelation of mind and body where a change in one will invariably alter the function of the other.

Fortunately for the vast majority there is enough medical knowledge to correct the situation and avoid the behavioral changes you have referred to.

[Daphne – Perhaps the child’s father has taken on that role. If not, it is almost certainly the grandparents. In any case, I really think this sort of thing is nobody’s business but that of the couple involved. As for having one parent waiting for the child after school, it makes no difference as my generation has proved. We all had mothers who didn’t work, because almost no mothers did in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, and it didn’t prevent many of my contemporaries from making a mess of their lives or killing themselves with drugs and/or drink.]

I mentioned Dr. Caruana for two reasons: firstly it is because she is the shadow spokesperson for the ‘family’ (whatever this entails then) and secondly because she prides herself in reminding Maltese society every so often of her motherhood (even Dr. Joseph Muscat, leader of the PL, has deemed fit to mention this to the nation).

[Daphne – You miss the point. She’s unsuitable not because she goes out to work and leaves her child in the care of others (thousands do the same). She’s unsuitable because she’s coarse, common and ill-spoken.]

What example does Maltese society have to follow then? A rat race for the material well-being (also known as career) while the off-spring is from dawn till dusk at nanna?

[Daphne – Nothing wrong with nanna. After all, she brought up mummy – or daddy.]

I am a career person and during the first four years of my offspring’s life I shelved my career plans and was out of employment for my child’s sake. Or maybe it was not a good idea after all, and I should have graciously left my child at my parents or at an ultra-modern child caring facility. And since my child is of school-going age, I return home (from work) always at the same time my child does.

This choice goes beyond gender. This arrangement should be done to suit the best of the whole ‘family’ unit. The other adult member of our unit does his/her best to be home as early as possible as well.

I do not know the family arrangement of each and every individual male MP in our parliament. However, if each male MP spends all that time away from the rest of his family, as well as his spouse, to the detriment of the children’s rights to enjoy the presence of (at least) one or both of their parents, then my criticism applies to them as well.

I believe that children deserve, have a right even, and really look forward to enjoy the maximum time possible with their parents.

[Daphne – What makes so many parents think that their children are gagging for their company? I have always found this mysterious. It’s not as though we haven’t all been children ourselves. Did we want our parents under our feet all the time? No. Children just need to know their parents are available, and after the initial blast of conversation when they come home from school or whatever, what they want most is their mother off their backs and to be left in peace with their own projects in their own room or the television or computer. Mothers hanging around kidding themselves they’re providing company after the age of say, seven, are a nuisance. But then I’m speaking only of families in which there are several siblings of roughly the same age. The trend of the last 20 years or so in having one child or two children fairly well spaced out has meant that the child’s primary relationship, which should be with his or her siblings of the same age, is instead focussed on the mother, which is unhealthy for both.]

Darwin would not agree with you. Darwin reports that many of our emotions and behaviours can be found in other animals but to lesser degrees.

[Daphne – Yes, including homosexuality, or didn’t you know that?]

Actually, much of modern science (in this field, of course) is based on the idea that we are only higher primates – not a species distinct from the genus of apes and monkeys.

What behaviour would you quote as an example of your assertion that “the beauty of being human is that, unlike beasts of the field, most of the things we do do not have, or have to have, an evolutionary purpose”?

[Daphne – Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood performed at Wembley Arena earlier tonight. No evolutionary purpose there. I was in the audience, overcome with emotion. No evolutionary purpose there, either. The audience went wild when Winwood sang an old Traffic song, Dear Mr Fantasy, for his encore – even though there was no evolutionary purpose in writing that song, in singing it, or in listening to it, and when many in the audience hadn’t even been born when it was first released. Now I’m sitting here replying to comments on this blog. No evolutionary purpose there that I can think of.]

There are “defective” genes such as the thalassaemia genes, cystic fibrosis, hyperlipidaemia (excess fats in the blood) gene, etc that have not only kept their presence in the population but have in fact increased their incidence.

It has been shown that these genes give an evolutionary advantage. The common factor amongst them is the fact that they are recessive genes – thus whilst they confer an advantage to the “healthy” carrier, in those cases where the person inherits two abnormal genes, the condition was invariably fatal.

A similar picture can thus be extrapolated for the complex genetic disorders e.g. hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, depression, schizophrenia etc. Some altered genes on their own could offer some advantages but when a number of these are found in the same individual, then this individual is a walking time-bomb. A single trigger factor and the combination of genes goes to work.

This is the mechanism for all the complex disorders. The question of homosexuality is still not clear though most probably some genetic factor is at work.

Dr. Caruana, as a mother of a 2 or 3 year old toddler (as seen on TV during political meetings) and as shadow spokesperson for the ‘family’, was in parliament at 1 o’clock in the morning debating, voting and, in general, doing politics. Dr. Caruana is also a lawyer who practises in the Gozo courts from Monday to Friday. She also dons her people’s representative hat in the afternoons and duly and dutifully does her bit in parliament in Malta too.

And beside these commitments, Dr. Caruana advertises, in her personal business cards, her legal office hours and legal office address in Gozo during the week and on Saturdays. In view of all this Dr. Caruana should either be glorified and given full kudos for her super-human multi-tasking capabilities while at the same time doing her maternal duties ‘as a mother’ or else there is something, somewhere which is amiss. As far as I know, the law courts in Gozo, do not have child-caring facilities, nor does our parliament building.

So, while Dr. Caruana is certainly doing her bit of shrilling in the law courts and in parliament, so well and so publicly, could it be that ‘as a mother’ and as shadow speaker for the ‘family’ she has found a new way how to cope with all? Or is it that the bit that is actually amiss in this life-style is the toddler with the absent mother? I wonder what does the ‘shadow speaker for the family’ has to teach Maltese society about motherhood.

[Daphne – Are you prepared to put the same criticism to the countless men in the House who have or have had small children while they were MPs following exactly the same career trajectory as Justyne Caruana? Or is it only women who should stay at home with small children?]

“So, whilst taking medications that one does not need can result in a chemical imbalance, taking these medications when needed should result in an improvement.”

Yes, when depression is the result of chemical imbalance. When it’s the result of circumstance, there’s fuck all that medication can achieve, apart from being a drain on one’s purse.

At the end of a course of medication, prescribed by some twit in a fancy room, you’ll realise you could have spent that money on outfitting yourself and hiring a couple of Sherpas to stand atop Everest. Lots of fun, depression cured, instant fame guaranteed.