유전학과 동성애의 생존에 관한 리처드 도킨스

### 동성애의 유전적 근거 탐구하기 이론과 시사점
* ✈ 리처드 도킨스는 마지막이 될 것으로 예상되는 북미 투어를 발표하며, 이 투어에서 관객들과 소통하고 **자신의 최신 저서인 "죽음의 유전학"에 대해 토론**할 예정이라고 밝혔습니다.
* 도킨스는 동성애 유전자가 존재하는지에 대한 의문을 제기하며, **다윈의 선택은 일반적으로 생식 유전자를 선호**하지만 인구에서 그러한 유전자가 지속되는 것은 수수께끼를 제시한다고 지적합니다.
* 🔍 그는 동성애의 유전적 근거에 대한 강력한 증거가 있다고 주장하며, **동성애자들은 다양한 배경**을 가지고 있기 때문에 **양육 환경이 성적 지향을 결정하지 않는다**고 강조합니다.
* 👨 도킨스는 **'게이 삼촌 이론'**을 소개하며 동성애자가 친척 자손의 생존율을 높여 유전자가 간접적으로 전달될 수 있다고 주장합니다.
* 🤔 그는 또한 동성애 유전자를 가진 개인이 양성애자이기 때문에 번식에 기여하는 동시에 사회 집단 내에서 신뢰 관계를 형성할 수 있다고 가정하는 **'교활한 이론'**에 대해서도 설명합니다.
* 🌱 도킨스는 환경 조건에 따라 유전자가 다르게 나타날 수 있다는 세 번째 이론을 제시하며 **"동성애 유전자"는 단일한 것이 아닐 수 있다**는 결론을 내립니다.
* 📉 그는 특히 생식 선택과 동성애에 대한 사회적 태도 등 동성애 유전자 확인이 미래에 미칠 수 있는 영향에 대한 우려를 제기하며, **유전적 증거가 수용을 촉진할 수 있지만 윤리적 딜레마**를 초래할 수도 있다고 강조합니다.
* 🌈 궁극적으로 도킨스는 유전적 요인과 환경적 요인이 성적 지향을 형성하는 데 복잡한 역할을 한다고 주장하면서 **동성애의 본질적 특성**을 주장하며, 향후 연구를 통해 이 문제에 대한 해답이 밝혀질 것으로 기대합니다.

리처드 도킨스는 생식 능력의 문제에도 불구하고 동성애가 지속되는 이유를 유전적 요인으로 설명할 수 있다고 주장합니다.

[Music] I shall be spending the whole of September and the first week of October in North America, speaking in 10 different cities from Dallas to Vancouver. I am 83 years old and travel is more irksome than it was. The maxim 'quit while you're ahead' has recently

received a welcome boost, and I anticipate that this will be my last American tour, my swan song, my final bow. There'll be a Q&A at every event and I'll be signing any or all of my 19 books, including 'The Genetical Book of the

Dead,' which will be just published. This will probably be your last opportunity to tell me how profoundly you disagree with everything I've written and said, or the reverse if that is the case. Either way, I look forward to seeing you. [Music] [Music]

There's a fair bit of evidence to suggest that genes for homosexuality exist. Not surprisingly, one of the commonest questions I get asked is how do such genes get passed on? Darwinian selection is of course all about the survival of genes and on the face of it,

genes for homosexuality are unlikely to find themselves in the next generation. It is a puzzle, but it's one that we can, I think, answer. Oh, you must be Wayne. Hello, I'm Richard Dawkins. This program is about Charles Darwin and uh as a Darwinian, one

of the commonest questions I get asked is why are there gays? Why doesn't, why doesn't it die out um in, in by natural selection? Because if you, if you've got a gay gene you're less likely to reproduce than if you, if you're heterosexual.

um this is only a problem if it's genetic for a start so there's got to be some genetic uh contribution to whether one is gay or not I think the evidence is pretty convincing that there is yeah I think the evidence is pretty

clear Certainly it doesn't seem to be upbringing why people are gay for example the only thing gay people have in common is that our backgrounds have nothing in common and I think almost every gay or lesbian person would say they didn't choose to be gay they always

knew they were and when their friends were attracted to the opposite sex they were attracted to the same sex so I think to me it's really clear cut it's it's genetic or biologically determined now we don't have all the answers yet and the question is from a Darwinian

standpoint how does this occur well I I think nature is pretty smart in that if you still have 90% to 95% of the the population heterosexual and reproducing uh there's room for people who aren't reproducing and whether it's because uh

they're set up people to be warriors and go out or or they're set up to uh be to be in a situation to take care of their parents and people as they get older and maybe that's what the contribution to nature is okay I mean it's not good enough to

say maybe 95% is enough natural selection is a much more uh stringent selector than that if there if there are 5% uh who are genetically gay then we do need a better explanation than just saying oh well 95% is enough enough now

you started to come on to something that might actually work when you said maybe looking after I mean I I I can think of three I suppose possibilities um one is the so-called gay Uncle theory where where you you look after your nephews and nieces or other relatives and that

makes sense in a in a wild ancestral human where perhaps the sort of Butch men went out hunting and um and left their their children in charge of in the charge of not only the mothers but also uncles I mean maybe the brothers of the of the so that that that means that that

the gay gene was passed on in the bodies of the children who were being protected by the gay uncles so that that's that's one possibility right and that's one that makes a lot of sense I think that uh you I think it does explain uh why the gay gene was passed

on and I think there's a lot more we're going to learn about that the second theory is the so-called sneaky Theory which is the idea that uh the males who possess the gay gene many of them may not have been wholly homosexual

they may have been bisexual uh in now in that case again go back to our scenario of the um dominant males going off Hunting and leaving behind um the women and children in the charge of other males uh and if there were other males who were known to be sexual then

the dominant uh males would have trusted them uh not to meet with the females I mean they were imagining a situation in which the dominant males are very possessive about their females perhaps harem holders and so being gay would have been a pretty good certificate that

You can you can safely leave your your women with me now. If they were bisexual, uh that would have been a false assumption. And once again, we now have a way in which the gay gene could have been passed on, right? I mean, it does make sense in that in that way because uh

they could go off and be more trusting, and we see that today where straight friends just love that they won't let their their wives hang out with uh uh other straight guys. They get too close, but if you're gay, oh, it's great, go out and have a good time. And it doesn't seem

to be that jealousy, so that that definitely makes sense both uh historically and also contemporarily. Well, now, I mean, it's hard, seems like it would make a lot of sense. It's hardly a good gay, right, slogan, but but it it actually is uh it does make sense from a

biological, I mean, you you see that the way the argument is going, obviously, that that that it could be that uh that males in our wild ancestors who possessed the gay gene, that they that they that they got their genes into into the next generation by by using that

that strategy and being gay was, or at least being bisexual, being gay was a very convincing way of lulling the suspicions of the dominant males. That's interesting. The question with that theory remains for today though, if people were doing that back then and

then in more modern terms, the 50s, 60s, and 70s, we had people pressured into getting married and reproducing with their genes uh what happens for the next few generations when gay people are just simply coming out and they're

not having sex with the opposite sex, are we going to see a decrease in homosexuality? Well, uh, it we might do I suppose on that on that theory, but it would probably take longer than the couple of decades that we've that we're

playing with now. So um, I I think perhaps a more serious objection might be uh, I I don't know what percentage of men are bisexual as opposed to purely homosexual, and perhaps you know that, I I don't know that, but it seems to me that there were

a lot more women that are bisexual. I can't think of really too many guys they start out as bisexual and they usually come out as gay later. Now, there are men who were bisexual, but I just think it's a smaller percentage than people might think just

from from my experience having met in being in the gay community and running organizations, we're meeting thousands of people over the years, I can't think of too many people to hop back and forth, no. And and you couldn't imagine yourself, I mean you you you couldn't couldn't

imagine being bisexual, not in my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine that. And if I would, I'd be happy, although it would be quite distracting. But uh, yeah, it's just something I could not imagine, right? Okay. And the third theory that I I suggest is

a is a rather more um esoteric one is that when we talk about a gene for something or other, a gene for anything, a gene for X, a gene for being aggressive, a gene for um having blue eyes, a gene for being gay, uh, it doesn't always have to

be a gene for that thing, it's a gene for that thing under the right environmental conditions. So for example, the gay gene that that manifests itself now in an urban environment in homosexual tendencies might in a very different environment, out on the African plains, have manifested itself in another

way. Genes are not that deterministic, they can show themselves in one way under one environmental circumstance, in a different way under another one. So just just just as an example of that, suppose that bottle feeding is the environment, this is a purely hypothetical thing, suppose bottle

feeding is the environmental circumstance that means that the gay gene manifests itself in gay behavior. But if you're breastfed, and please don't imagine I'm I'm I think that's true, it's just a it's just an example, but if you're

breastfed, it doesn't. Well, before bottles were invented, that means that the gay gene would never have have manifested itself in gay behavior at all, it would have manifested itself as something quite different. I mean, maybe the ability to to be good at tracking animal prey or

something of that sort. Once bottle feeding came in, it changes the manifestation of the gene. So what this theory is saying is that there's really no such thing as the gay gene, there's the gay gene given that the the cultural or environmental circumstances are right

and before that, it wasn't a gay gene at all. So there was nothing to stop it getting passed on because it was good for something quite different in those days. Yeah, I mean, the only question I would have with that would be that gay people come from every environment

imaginable whether it's somewhere very liberal whether it's in London or New York City where you can be openly gay or in places like Iran where you're going to get beheaded, yes, or hung, and people are still gay under all circumstances. So I, I would, well, what

you're putting, there is an argument, um, that that that it is more deterministic than I'm making out there, an argument that if you got the gay gene, you are gay no matter what, and that's what I, that's what I believe. I think people can

certain pressure can hide their behavior, and we see that in the United States right here. You have people who are who are out and open when they're living in a in a bigger city in New York, in San Francisco, and say they have to go home

to take care of a parent in rural Alabama, and they're not so out anymore. So I think the social pressure would determine how it plays out more than anything, and I think we've seen gay people in every society, all the way from from the cave to Alexander the Great on

by, I just think it's I think it's it's something that is more deterministic from my experience, it couldn't change under any circumstances, and the only thing that would change it, uh, would be for example, if I went to Saudi Arabia today, they were going to behead me, oh, I'd

be saying I'm really straight right about now. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, I suppose one thing I'm actually quite curious about is is why isn't the percentage more? I mean, what about ancient Athens and Sparta? I mean, why why was it so much more common

indeed more or less universal well I think that uh that's that's a good question but I just think that people culturally were going to experiment but I think ultimately they were going to if they were straight they were going to be with a woman or wanted to eventually

well I think they were they probably all I mean not all but I mean they they they viewed women as different they were for reproducing and and I I think that that that's right or and so it was a sort of um they were all the ones we're talking

about were were bisexual um yeah okay so so do you think I mean but today for example yeah you don't see I don't see this the heterosexuals that go to San Francisco they're prob the gayest spot on Earth are still straight my friends that are

straight there I don't see much hopping over and and and because of the environment I see people being just being able to be who they are I don't see environment influencing that in any way and um or we'd see San Francisco would all of a sudden go from you know

25% gay to 35 and 40 we don't we don't see that we don't see that can I turn to another topic which is um obviously I mean the question of whether there are gay genes is is is controversial by the way when we talk about gay genes it

doesn't have to mean the particular one that that that's you know on the X chromosome that's passed down the female line I mean any any genetic tendency to be gay uh could be what we're talking about um do you and do any of your

friends take some kind of consolation from this I mean is that is politically speaking or socially speaking or even morally speaking is is the gay gene a good thing from your point of view a gay gene is a double-edged sword and the reason is Americans if you pull them and

you can show that homosexuality is inborn they support gay and lesbian rights across the board I mean it's very robust and very dramatic they think it's a choice like what you're going to eat for breakfast in the morning what shirt you're going to wear they vote against

gay rights so it's very important to show through a gay gene it's not a choice that will help us politically tomorrow and have dramatic results the problem comes if they can find out in the womb they can see in advance if somebody's going to be gay I think you'd

have absolute disaster you'd have mass abortions taking place yes there's no doubt in my mind that you'd have conservatives because of religious points of view having abortions even though they say they're against abortion uh and you'd have a lot of liberal

parents simply doing it because they think life would be easier or they'd want grandchildren I think it would be our nightmare come true so I never thought that so I want I want for scientific for both science and for political reasons I think it would be

the most amazing thing in the world if they discovered a gay gene but if they can also pair it with the technology to see in the womb whether a child's gay it's going to turn into an absolute horror situation for the gay and lesbian community no doubt about it for me yes

what what would be interesting though is if homosexuality has been advanced genetically by this sneaky theory uh what does that mean for the future when you have gay people suddenly not getting married suddenly not having sex with the opposite sex at all do that mean there's going to be a decrease in

homosexuality perhaps our saving grace however genetically is going to be that as there is more acceptance and there's technology to reproduce we are having children we are starting families at record numbers so we are still moving our genes forward uh whether it's through artificial insemination uh or

some people just choose with their friends to do to have children uh especially with women now working into their 30s and they all of a sudden go oh my God I don't have a child and they go to their gay best friend and say would

you like to have a child and so we're seeing alternative ways of spreading the gene in the future well yes I mean uh artificial insemination um could be sort of the ultimate sneaky f the yeah the scientific sneaky try to say that 10 times yes that's

right uh well well yes I mean technology I mean and civilization is having all sorts of effects and human reproduction is changing so rapidly the whole environment is changing so rapidly if you start asking the question what effect is this having on natural selection it's having all kinds of

effects I mean the existence of contraception uh is of course in in principle having huge effects I mean there should be natural selection against any tendency to use uh contraceptives during um heterosexual sex uh if it what we could speculate that if

if condoms had been around for a million years we should shrink from them as though it was a tarantula or a scorpion or something because it has the same kind of effect upon your future reproductive prospects I think the point is that all these speculations are

speculations for a rather longer term future than we're used to dealing with when we think in terms of decade to decade changes in changes in passion so if if there were were any tendency for gay genes to be decreasing for the reason that that you suggest we probably

wouldn't see it as an evolutionary effect until long after our grandchildren are dead right and of course it'd be hard even to recognize that over we used to thinking in such short increments of time I mean I think we're talking about contraception we're

finally seeing for example in Europe the decrease in younger people in certain countries and we're seeing the Decades of that um are as actually changing the demographic uh population right now then there's a theory we could call the byproduct Theory genes have multiple

effects and the the effect that you think it well you may be looking at one of the effects of the Gene and so you're asking a question about what is the Darwinian survival value of that effect little do you know that the Gene's having some quite different effect maybe

some internal effect in in the biochemistry of the body which is what its real Advantage is and so you're in a sense asking the wrong question when you say uh it could be that you're asking the wrong question when you say what's the biological advantage of having a gay

gene the the right answer might be oh that's not a gay gene or any incidentally a gay gene what it really is is a gene for making such and such a chemical uh we're left with a problem why don't why don't we all have it in that

case and so it's got got to be a bit more complicated than that uh but nevertheless the byproduct theory is one of the first theories that would that would occur to a Darwinian mhm it just seems to me that they're going to find

something more definitive because gay people matter where they are in the world are under incredible pressure specifically in in conservative areas to conform unbelievable pressure even at the expense of their lives yet they still come out as gay I I think you're going to find for example the recent

study with the fruit fly where they changed one into a lesbian fruit fly with one gene splice I really believe in my heart they're going to find something similar with gay and lesbian people it is such a natural part of our existence it's it's so

um inborn most of us would say that I I don't think you're going to find it to be as a result of some alternative uh secondary trait it's intrinsic to who we are and and and so I think that theory is going to be the one that falls by the

wayside of all of them okay that's interesting um on the question of uh responsibility and and that you were saying that uh society would tend to be very sympathetic to gays if it was shown that definitely is a gay gene that of course is is it has a special force if

It's if it's a deterministic thing, which you just implied that it is, that if you've got the gay gene and you're gay and that's that. Um, now it's a slight risk to play that card when dealing with, um,

responsibility. Um, being gay is of course nothing to do with being criminal or anything else, but one could imagine somebody could discover uh a gene for for some criminal behavior, a gene for theft or a gene for kleptomania or something and then you could imagine

people going to court and saying uh, well it wasn't me your honor, it was my genes, and um, do you see the kind of difficulty that that might come? Never not talking about gayness now, but just just in general if one starts using the the alleged deterministic qualities of genes

to absolve one of any kind of responsibility? I think we're going to have to take each case uh separately because they're probably going to find a genetic component in alcoholism and and kleptomania and a number of things. So then the question you ask is, okay then,

what's wrong with with kleptomania? Well, you're stealing something from somebody else, you're hurting them. But homosexuality, on the other hand, you're not hurting anybody, and so you're going to have a situation politically where you have religious extremists in my

opinion on one side who are trying to lump everything together and saying that kleptomania and murder is the same as homosexuality, and then you're going to have the vast majority of people who aren't uh brainwashed into that sort of

of fundamentalist thinking who are going to say wait a second don't compare murder and kleptomania to homosexuality that's just plain incoherent yes I mean in any case uh we don't have to bring genes in you could imagine that somebody

could show that the reason you're kleptomaniac is because of your environment of course it is of your environment and your and your genes I it's not my fault your honor it's my environment and uh uh there's no particular reason to single out genes

for absolving one of responsibility anyway right and and there're it's going to be a real these are opening ethical questions that we've never had to deal with before and it's it's going to be absolutely fascinating but also scary as we go into the future and we learn more

about ourselves and in a sense play quote God and be able to see how we got here who we are uh the the small the little things we only dreamt about or saw in science fiction are now going to be playing out on the world stage in in

political arenas yeah it seems to follow from the theory of Darwinian natural selection that if anything is widespread in a species it must be good for something or natural selection would have got rid of it uh and this seems to raise a problem it's one of the

commonest questions I get asked what why does gayness survive of course it's only a problem if it's genetic if it's if it were purely environmental we wouldn't have a Darwinian problem but it's because it's genetic that we have to

Explain, as a Darwinian, how it is that gay genes, uh, survive in the population? So for a Darwinian, it becomes a very important question: is it, as a matter of fact, genetic? Are there gay genes? And, um, I think we probably both looked at the evidence for this. What

what's your assessment of the evidence on on gay genes? Well, first I have to look at the environmental theories. It's said that people are gay because how they were brought up, because they have distant same-sex parents or they didn't play sports, for example. And those are

patently absurd. They don't stand the test of scrutiny. Uh, gay and lesbian people come from every environment imaginable. We come from very conservative backgrounds and very liberal backgrounds. We come from very close families and broken families, just like heterosexuals. So that it doesn't

seem to be a cause and effect that those who push the environmental theory, uh, like like to say. On the other hand, we're seeing over the past 15 years many studies coming out that show many interesting things. For example, lesbians hear music more like a straight man, uh

than than many women. They have hand patterns, lesbians, that resemble, uh, heterosexual men. There were there were seem to be genes that at least point in that direction right now. We we also see, for example, that birth order: the more brothers you have, uh, the the more likely

you are to be gay as as a youngest brother. Yes, as a youngest brother, the more likely you are to be gay. So I think if you put all of this together, there is a foundation pointing strongly in the direction of a biological or genetic, uh, um determination of sexual orientation.

and I believe it's going to play out where we see it's going to be definitive at some point when we have the knowledge there were religious conservatives in America that will argue well we haven't shown there's a gay gene therefore there isn't one and it has to be environmental.

and that's crazy that's like saying before we discovered the world was round that it was kind of round or flat because we just hadn't come to that point of Discovery Well that's not true we're just not there yet there's a lot we don't know but that doesn't mean it

points to environmental there is no cause and effect when it comes to how we are raised or our family relationships that would point to that what about twin studies the twin studies show that the more that identical twins are much more likely to be gay than uh fraternal twins

or well strictly speaking what you mean is isn't it that if you're gay and you're an identical twin your twin is likely to be gay if you're heterosexual and you're an identical twin your twin is likely to be heterosexual and that resemblance is greater for identical

twins than for fraternal twins uh yeah the twin studies do point to genetic uh however people might argue well that if it's not 100% uh that means that genetics can't play a role well as far as I know there were left people who were left-handed

and right-handed who were brothers or sisters and we have one that's right-handed one that's left-handed and nobody suggesting that they're left-handed because of their bad upbringing it doesn't have to be 100% anyway that's that's completely

completely illogical It's it's it's enough that it's a statistical effect and that's that's a very key point though because people think if genetics has to be statistically 100% And that's the main argument that we hear over and

over again from the religious right in America, particularly in the South Yes that point cuts both ways I suppose because if you are worried about responsibility as they are, um they could say well if it's not 100% that means we could train you to be heterosexual and

what we have in America is we have a robust uh um ex-gay industry When I mean ex-gay there's people who say they can help you pray away the gay if you just pay them enough money and we see more than 100 ministries in this country They have

an elaborate uh tour of conferences and symposiums around around the nation to try to convert people from gay to straight and they do all kinds of weird things like have men drink sports drinks and call each other dude so they'll be more masculine or they have you wear a

How is the "Gay Gene" alive? Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins Explains

The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins

리처드 도킨스의 예정된 투어 및 예약

도킨스는 9월과 10월에 10개 도시를 방문하는 북미 투어를 발표했습니다.

그는 자신의 나이(83세)와 이번이 마지막 미국 투어가 될 가능성이 높다고 언급했습니다.

Q&A 세션과 책 사인회도 각 이벤트의 일부로 진행됩니다.

그는 '죽은 자들의 유전학 서적'을 포함한 19권의 저서에 사인을 할 예정입니다.

동성애 유전자가 존재한다는 증거가 제시되면서 이들의 생존에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있습니다.

자연 선택을 통해 동성애가 사라지지 않는 이유에 대한 질문이 논의됩니다.

도킨스는 동성애는 양육의 문제가 아니라 유전적 또는 생물학적으로 결정되는 것일 가능성이 높다고 주장합니다.

그는 동성애자들이 자신의 성향을 선택한 것이 아니라는 점을 강조합니다.

토론은 동성애의 지속성에 대한 다윈주의적 설명으로 이어집니다.

동성애 유전자의 지속성을 설명하는 이론들

'게이 삼촌' 이론은 게이 삼촌이 조카와 조카의 생존에 기여한다는 이론입니다.

'은밀한' 이론은 양성애자 남성이 우성 수컷의 신뢰를 받아 자신의 유전자를 전달할 수 있다고 제안합니다.

'부산물' 이론은 유전자가 환경에 따라 다른 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 것을 시사합니다.

이 토론에서는 '게이 유전자'의 발현이 결정적인지 아니면 환경의 영향을 받는지를 고려합니다.

'게이 유전자'의 사회적, 정치적 의미

'게이 유전자'의 존재는 정치적, 사회적 함의 측면에서 논의됩니다.

'동성애 유전자'의 발견은 동성애자 권리에 대한 대중의 지지에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.

유전 정보가 오용되어 선택적 낙태로 이어질 수 있다는 우려가 제기되고 있습니다.

변화하는 사회 규범과 생식 기술이 동성애 유병률에 미치는 영향에 대해 논의합니다.

개인의 행동에 대한 책임을 면제하기 위해 유전자 정보를 오용할 수 있는 가능성에 대해 논의합니다.

이 토론에서는 도벽과 같이 타인에게 해를 끼치는 행동과 동성애의 차이점에 대해 중점적으로 다룹니다.

유전학에 대한 이해가 높아짐에 따라 제기되는 윤리적 문제가 강조되고 있습니다.

게이 유전자의 존재에 대한 증거

다윈주의적 관점에서 동성애가 왜 지속되는지에 대한 질문을 다시 살펴봅니다.

동성애에 대한 환경적 이론은 증거가 부족하다고 일축됩니다.

레즈비언의 청각 지각, 손 패턴, 출생 순서의 차이를 보여주는 최근 연구 결과가 언급되었습니다.

일란성 쌍둥이의 동성애 비율이 더 높다는 쌍둥이 연구에 대해 논의합니다.

'전 동성애자' 사역의 존재와 그들의 유해한 관행이 언급됩니다.