Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!ariel!jcollier
From: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: The function of sex
Message-ID: <668@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 19 May 91 15:25:20 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne
Lines: 28

Thank you to everyone who responded. Your remarks and comments have
been very helpful.

Several people expressed scepticism about the validity of the notion
of biological function, especially when used to justify either moral
or practical "shoulds". This point is well-taken, though I don't agree
with it myself, though my reasons involve some controversial premises
and some novel argumentation (for those familiar with the sociobiological
literature, the arguments are largely those of Robert Richards). It 
does seem to me that with our present knowledge, a lot of scepticism 
towards particular functional claims and their consequences for pratical
action is justified.

A number of people wrote on the possible motivations of my friend, 
the Italian mathematician. As I recall, he said that his beliefs on
the function of sex (reproduction) made sex more meaningful and
enjoyable for him. I should have noted this explicitly in my original
post, since it might make both his conscious and unconscious motivations
more clear. I certainly do not doubt his claim about this effect of his
beliefs. The interaction of beliefs and possible other deep-seated
biological tendencies or imperatives makes answering my original
question a good deal more complicated than I had originally thought.

At least that is progress, of a sort :-).
-- 
John Collier 				Email: Collier@HPS.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- University of Melbourne		  jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052	Fax:   61+3 344 7959