Is homosexuality mother natures way of reducing world population?

[chrisman10]

Could it be possible?

[Juryoku]

I know I'm not one of authority here on the forums, considering this is my first post but I would have to say no.

I really hope this guy isn't trolling, but a part of me thinks he is..

 

But the most obvious answer why is that you're assuming mother nature is conscious of the size of our planet, and it's current population density. Obviously mother nature has no way of knowing the population density, so the conclusion that anything would be done to reduce population by mother nature would be false on its premises. For what reason would there be a mechanism for population reduction?

Someone may have another opinion though?

Edited February 20, 2011 by Juryoku

[chrisman10]

I know I'm not one of authority here on the forums, considering this is my first post but I would have to say no.

I really hope this guy isn't trolling, but a part of me thinks he is..

 

But the most obvious answer why is that you're assuming mother nature is conscious of the size of our planet, and it's current population density. Obviously mother nature has no way of knowing the population density, so the conclusion that anything would be done to reduce population by mother nature would be false on its premises. For what reason would there be a mechanism for population reduction?

Someone may have another opinion though?

 

The part of you that thinks i'm trolling is wrong.

[Juryoku]

The part of you that thinks i'm trolling is wrong.

 

Ok, that's fine, my apologies for assuming. Hope my answer was of some help.

[lemur]

What is it about homosexuality that prevents people from making sperm-donations, adopting or otherwise contributing to child-rearing, etc.? You could just as easily theorize that homosexuality is nature's way of supercharging reproduction by encouraging more intensive divisions of sexual labor. I believe, for example, that many animals sex-segregate upon reaching puberty. I don't know when and why sexual activity occurs among the gender-segregated individuals, but it could have the function of stimulating them sexually so that they will go in search of heterosexual contact. In fact, homoeroticism could serve as simultaneous sexual play/practice AND repression of heterosexual desire, which could heighten the excitement experienced during eventual heterosexual pairing. You can't be too quick to make simplistic assumptions about sexual and other social behavior, because different behaviors can interweave in complex ways.

[SMF]

Juryoku, in terms of how evolution works your assessment is right on. Evolution works at the individual level. If homosexuality was a really important negative factor for evolution it would have been selected out. The fact that it remains means that this propensity has an important evolutionary function, or that it is not important to the evolutionary process at all and crops up occasionally, or that it is a pleiotropic trait that is not as important as its other genetic traits. The latter is unlikely because homosexuality, if it is a genetic effect at all, is probably a large multigene trait. SM

[Mr Skeptic]

Is homosexuality mother natures way of reducing world population?

 

Nature of course is not conscious of us, but I doubt that is what you meant. Did you mean perhaps homosexuality is an evolved adaptation to reduce population size? If so, then homosexuals have lower fitness and get weeded out by natural selection. Not only could that not evolve, but if that was there to start with it it would disappear.

 

There's plenty of possibilities left. It could be that homosexuality increases reproductive fitness. It could be that homosexuality is an occasional side effect from some trait that increases reproductive fitness. It could be that homosexuality increases the reproductive fitness of others that are genetically related, so indirectly increasing the reproductive fitness of a homosexual (your brother's kid counts as half your kid from a genetic standpoint). Sensing a pattern?

[Furshiz]

Could it be possible?

 

If you believe in mother nature then yes, otherwise no!

[shaft21]

whatever exists in nature is natural , so there is nothing as "abnormal" which exists, nature eliminates watever is unfit by natural selection, and human sexuality is too complex to understand, so homosexuality is a nature's way of course to keep a ctrl on human population, another trick of nature just like the introduction of HIV.

overpopulation leads to mass extinction of the species, so it's one of the ways to keep human species under ctrl.

 

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

 

Overpopulation and overspecialization leads to mass extinction of species . Human species is going to face it soon :

The 6th mass extinction crisis.

[AzurePhoenix]

Like Skeptic points out, if homosexuality functioned to reduce an organism's fecundity, it'd be ruthlessly selected against and wiped out of populations wherever it might arise. The opposite is more likely to be true. There are at least two situations that I can think of where homosexuality advantageously helps to maximize the reproductive capacity of either the homosexual in question or their close kin, both of which Skeptic touched on.

 

Among black swans, homosexual male pairs will sometimes fertilize a female, wait for her clutch, then drive her away to rear the young themselves, on average raising a higher number of cygnets to adulthood than heterosexual pairs do.

 

Among humans, there's the Gay Uncle Hypothesis. It was predicted that in pre-agricultural human society, when most people lived in small bands as hunter-gatherers or in small tribal communities, in which familial ties are often much stronger than they are today, a homosexual sibling might not be as likely to have as many or any children of their own to invest in. Instead, the homosexual uncle or aunt might happily dote on any nieces or nephews they might have. As such, the siblings of homosexual individuals would benefit, being able to successfully raise a potentially greater number of children to maturity. A sibling of a homosexual would be more likely (than individuals from family lines that might not produce many or any homosexuals) to carry some of the genes that might contribute to homosexuality, and pass them on to their own greater number of children, perpetuating homosexuality and the cycle. As it turns out, when existing low-population societies of a more "archaic" pre-industrial or mass-scale agricultural makeup were examined, homosexual relatives did tend to devote more of their time and resources to the children of their close kin. The effect doesn't however carry over into large-population, industrialized, westernisish, typically "me-centric" societies.

Edited February 21, 2011 by AzurePhoenix

[jimfaster]

I think it's a way to manage the world's population. But there are several ways to control: natural disasters in the world of mortals, for example.

 

But I think that being gay is a way of being, is a special or different life experience. I believe in reincarnation, so the gays can have a different way, that God takes the soul, make him take a lifetime to learn some specific things that the soul needs. Nothing is the case, and even sexual orientation is a way to learn something that can be learned only through sexuality gay.

[Holland44]

I believe homosexuality derives from either: 1. Social distortion, meaning society affects someone in a way that makes the believe they are attracted to the same sex. 2. Hormone imbalance, not enough testosterone/estrogen or other chemicals. 3. Confusion of stimuli, the confusion of stimuli is my favorite explanation, it means that early in one's child hood, a stimulus occurred that was either rewarded or justified by the individual causing a confusion in sexual preferences.

 

And then there is always the fourth option saying that's just the way things are..... But that wouldn't be applying science.

[Blauwefox]

Homosexuality is prevalent in Nature as well as before Judeo-christian ideologies become the norm.

 

Not wanting to open a can of worms, but in ancient greece pederasty is a social norm. A young-ish male being adopted/mentored by an older man in arts of war, politics, and sex. Brotherly love is acceptable in that social context. They do reproduce, as marriage is considered an expected social duty, too, and fatherhood is good for the tribe (more manpower). Plus the warlike males tend to be successful reproductively by fertilising females of the conquered nations. But in terms of social interactions, it's mostly gender segregated: male-male, and female-female. Achilles doted on Patroclus, Hephastion on Alexander (ok, ok he's Macedonian, technically), Heracles on Ioulous. Young boys aspire to be Heroes and some will vie for the attention of their idols by perfecting their performance in combat/arts etc.

 

Nothing to do with nature wanting to cut down population.

 

Of course, any anthropologists here are welcome to correct my view, as I'm just speculating.

[AzurePhoenix]

I believe homosexuality derives from either: 1. Social distortion, meaning society affects someone in a way that makes the believe they are attracted to the same sex. 2. Hormone imbalance, not enough testosterone/estrogen or other chemicals. 3. Confusion of stimuli, the confusion of stimuli is my favorite explanation, it means that early in one's child hood, a stimulus occurred that was either rewarded or justified by the individual causing a confusion in sexual preferences.

 

And then there is always the fourth option saying that's just the way things are..... But that wouldn't be applying science.

Or the fifth option that does apply science and accounts for genetic predispositions and evolution.

[Dave49]

I don't think so. Because nature has permitted us, through medical science, to make it possible for homosexuals to reproduce.

[Moontanman]

I don't think so. Because nature has permitted us, through medical science, to make it possible for homosexuals to reproduce.

 

 

So you think homosexuals cannot reproduce with out modern medical assistance?

[lemur]

So you think homosexuals cannot reproduce with out modern medical assistance?

Technically, yes. But how difficult is it socio-culturally?

[Moontanman]

Technically, yes.

 

Technically? Yes? Can you elaborate on that?

 

 

But how difficult is it socio-culturally?

 

About as difficult as it is for heterosexuals, do you really think homosexuals cannot have sex with the opposite sex? Besides the fact that many people regularly cross the so called lines of sexual behavior if modern medical technology was required for homosexuals to reproduce then they would have been eliminated from the gene pool way before modern medical technology existed.

 

 

Homosexuality is a sexual behavior, often one of many sexual behaviors practiced by human beings, the idea of a homosexual not being able or even willing to occasionally cross the lines of sexual behaviors is about as false as saying heterosexuals don't cross over either...

[lemur]

Technically? Yes? Can you elaborate on that?

sperm + egg = zygote. If homosexual couples have sperm or egg, they can seek the other ingredient and produce zygote if they have an 'incubator.'

 

About as difficult as it is for heterosexuals, do you really think homosexuals cannot have sex with the opposite sex? Besides the fact that many people regularly cross the so called lines of sexual behavior if modern medical technology was required for homosexuals to reproduce then they would have been eliminated from the gene pool way before modern medical technology existed.

That assumes that homosexuality and heterosexuality are genetically separate propensities. I tend to believe that sexuality in undifferentiated in terms of its target(s) until culturally developed via various interactions. But, no, I don't think that it is any more difficult for homosexuals to have sex with the opposite sex than it is for heterosexuals to have same-sex sex, if sufficient reason was present.

 

Homosexuality is a sexual behavior, often one of many sexual behaviors practiced by human beings, the idea of a homosexual not being able or even willing to occasionally cross the lines of sexual behaviors is about as false as saying heterosexuals don't cross over either...

Agreed, except that I think there are less sexual or non-sexual forms of homosexuality. I don't think you should assume that sexuality-development and gender-orientation are either mutually exclusive or totally correlated. They can influence each other in various ways. Beliefs about sexuality has been skewed by obsessive heteronormativity.

 

 

[Moontanman]

Homosexuality is a very complex issue that most people tend to want to simplify because of temptation or guilt. In some ways the modern idea of homosexuality, it would seem according the the following link, is indeed a modern idea, since we see everything through the goggles of current "understanding" this seems to have more weight than i would have believed at first.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-sexual-freedoms-modern.html