Nature's Population Control

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by nnmartin

That's only an artificial way of managing the situation, but we can see quite clearly how, over time, the human population has steadily increased - and is continuing to increase more.

So nature still wins out here, even with birth control.

If you take the entire population into consideration, maybe. But that is more survival than anything. For individuals, that hardly is true. Especially when so many have no want to procreate. Also, if all nature was concerned with producing, we wouldn't have people who are not able to reproduce, such as the sterile (that certainly destroys your argument), as well as the infertile, or the old (who are pass their reproducing age).

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem with the population control hypothesis is that is a) that homosexuality has been readily noticed in species ranging from humans who are in no immediate danger of being extent to those who are threatened and endangered, and b) if it were so then we should rarely if ever see it places like zoos, and places of low population or species with few surviving members, while it should be very widespread in areas like Tokyo that are not only highly populated, but very densely populated as well.

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by Egyptian Phoenix

Oh well I wasn't suggesting that at all, that we cannot have children. I was speculating what biological function it may serve in nature. When gay people have kids the way we do it isn't something that could take place without technology. Without that technology being gay would be a natural population control mechanism, but science finds lots of ways to beat nature.

maybe someone already said this...
but i think technology plays a big role in our evolution...as technology's original source is organic...our brains.

[Mr. Skittles]

I think (I use this word loosely) that the theory of homosexuality as a means of population control is logical at best.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skittles

I think (I use this word loosely) that the theory of homosexuality as a means of population control is logical at best.

Then you need to re-check your logic.

wa:do

[Mr. Skittles]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Then you need to re-check your logic.

wa:do

Why should I? Makes sense. When M. Night Shamalan made that movie about trees that sent pollen in the air allowing humans to breathe it in and kill each other as a means of population control I think in theory that would seem logical. This is why I mentioned theory. Hopefully we will find out why men and women develop homosexual tendencies

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skittles

Why should I? Makes sense. When M. Night Shamalan made that movie about trees that sent pollen in the air allowing humans to breathe it in and kill each other as a means of population control I think in theory that would seem logical. This is why I mentioned theory. Hopefully we will find out why men and women develop homosexual tendencies

For one this isn't a theory... it's barely credible as a hypothesis.

Second, homosexual people still reproduce and have always been reproductive in various ways through history.

The idea is flawed in it's basic premise. Reality isn't a bad movie ripped off from a reasonably decent science fiction story.

wa:do

[Shadow Wolf]

Why should I? Makes sense. When M. Night Shamalan made that movie about trees that sent pollen in the air allowing humans to breathe it in and kill each other as a means of population control I think in theory that would seem logical. This is why I mentioned theory. Hopefully we will find out why men and women develop homosexual tendencies

As PW mentioned, it such a weak argument that it falls apart at the hypothesis level.
But I am fairly certain there is no real "why" to homosexuality: we are sexual animals, we are instinctively programed to seek sexual pleasure, and homosexuality can be just as gratifying as heterosexuality, or bisexuality, or three-somes, or bondage, or swingers, or any other type of sex. There is no special reason, other than people need sex and different people find pleasure in different people and different activities.
And why does it even need a definitive cause? There is already an abundance of studies that point to various genetic and environmental influences. But considering it's very normal and quite common for heterosexuals to some degree fantasize and have curiosities about the same sex (I would assume the same for homosexuals thinking about the same sex, but I've not actually read any studies about it), I think the more interesting question is what causes people to be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. It's most likely mostly social conditioning, with some genetic factors, but since being one-or-the-other limits our natural drives, and that there is much more social acceptance of bisexual women than men, which is probably the reason there are more bisexual women than men, to me suggest that if social conditioning were removed bisexuality may become the norm.

[Mr. Skittles]

Well this isnt a biology class this is a discussion. There are all sorts of possibilities as to why people are homosexual. There is no definite answer hypothesis or not when it comes down to it there is no definite answer point blank. We can only go by theories even if they're not under the scientific method.

[The Sum of Awe]

Originally Posted by gjallarhorn

...have they never seen male nipples? :d

athetit!!!