By that time, they will look like this and self pollinate.
By that time, they will look like this and self pollinate.
That's how you define it. But that's obviously not how Bromhall defines it. To him, the goal of evolution is to be hugged and kissed and ... stuff.
It's a narcissistic view of the world, in which "what happens after I'm gone" is completely without meaning. And so offspring -- the ultimate in "what happens after I'm gone" -- are also meaningless.
There is a certain twisted elegance to this logic. If one believes that homosexuality is an evolved trait, then the inability to produce offspring must be proof that evolution has a different goal.
I find it fascinating, BTW, that Bromhall's "infantilism" does not seem to differ in any practical sense from Ayn Rand's description of man's "highest moral purpose":
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Like Bromhall, Rand rejects the notion that offspring have any moral import. And Bromhall, like Rand, is espousing "happiness" as the highest moral purpose in a rational universe.
At first glance, this article is simply preposterous. But after a bit of thought, I find it contains a lot of useful insights -- probably none of which would make Mr. Bromhall particularly happy.