Klarinet Archive - Posting 000568.txt from 2004/03

From: ormondtoby@------.net (Ormondtoby Montoya)
Subj: Re: [kl] "Biologically Correct" ?? (With relevance to clarinet...)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:53:48 -0500

Bill Hausmann and Joseph Wakeling were discussing:

> For example, you took the data that
> homosexual behaviour increases when
> population density increases, and jumped to
> the conclusion that it was because of "stress".

and

> What other possible purpose could that have
> had EXCEPT to study their reaction under the
> artificially created population STRESS?

I am *not* offering my opinion on the amendment, but I was the one who
cited this experiment and I need to clarify something about it.

I can tell you that the experiment's stated purpose (it has been
repeated many times) was to model the population dynamics that occur in
nature. Obviously you can't reproduce nature on a laboratory bench,
but the experiments were somebody's attempt to test the dynamics of
"real" populations in nature. Density and sex ratio *do* change in
nature and are worth studying. Reacting to environmental changes is
part of "nature".

In fact, my laboratory class arranged a similar experiment in order to
test the effect of weather patterns on populations in nature. We
created realistic winds to in order to affect the reproduction of flies,
which have the experimental advantage of short life span and rapid
breeding.

I did not use the word "stress" in my description of this experiment.
Someone else supplied it, and I think it misses the point of the
experiment.

The use of "stress" as being "artificial" summons the image of a
physicist who applies a force to an object, and then he states: "Under
the stress of an artificially applied force of <blah blah>, the object
moved according to the equation <blah blah>." It would be ridiculous
to ignore the result because the "stress" was "unnatural". Population
density and sex ratio *do* fluctuate over time in nature. Whether this
has any moral or ethical importance is a separate issue (which I am not
debating).