Evolutionary Population Control??

Question

A friend of mine is of the opinion that gay people are Evolutionary Population Control... interesting right? So would you agree to this or not and why?

Answer 1

Well, if it is, it's not working. Our population has increased beyond the point where it can be sustained by the planet Earth. We'd have to go 90% COMPLETELY gay now (no bisexuality allowed) for a few generations, just to get the population back in line to where it needs to be. I believe I read 2 or 3 billion was the sustainable limit,

Also, I believe the incidence of homosexuality is not really increasing, it's just becoming more visible.

Answer 2

Absolutely. It's been observed in other species, especially primate studies, where the population is kept in isolation without the option of migration, that homosexual behaviour increases spontaneously at a certain point. Also, there are many animal species where some members of the population will spontaneously change sex if there is either not enough or too many of one sex to make for a viably reproductive group. Remember Jurassic Park? The frogs they used to "fill in" the Dino DNA actually change sex as described.

Personally though, I think it has a lot more to do with how much pollution we've pumped into our world. Masculinity/Femininity is controlled by two groups of hormones: Androgens, which cause masculine characteristics to develop, and Estrogens, which cause female characteristics to develop. The problem is that, since we discoverd biochemistry in the 50's, we've been pumping compunds called xeno-estrogens, (man-made chemicals that act like natural estrogens) into our water, the air, our food...

Now isn't it interesting that, all of a sudden, male sperm motility is going down the tubes, (pardon the pun) with some scientists saying that men will be sterile within a few generations. At the same time, gynocomastia (where men develop breasts) is on the increase, and oh, yes, there happens to be an increase in the number of homosexual and transgendered people.

Coinki-dink? I think not...

Answer 3

I would seriously doubt it. For this to even be a probable theory would require evidence that the global gay population has increased. There is no way to make this assumption. Homosexuality is more visible now because it is not as socially repressed as it has historically been. There are, however well documented accounts of homosexuality in ancient times (in Roman culture, man-boy relationships were rampant and socially acceptable). Furthermore, population control is indicated by environment, not biology. As long as there is enough food to eat and no predatory threat, there is no physiological basis for our bodies to adapt. Lastly, evolution takes thousands of years. Human population has not been a problem long enough for any evolutionary changes to have taken place.

Answer 4

While there is certainly evidence that a homosexual orientation has a genetic basis at least in part, the law of natural selection doesn't favour genetic patterns that reduce the chances of reproduction of that pattern, so a gene whose sole purpose was to stop people reproducing would die out very quickly.

I have an alternative theory, which is supported by research suggesting men are more likely to be gay if they have older brothers.

This suggests that the "gay gene" is only switched on if there is already a heterosexual male around who is likely to be carrying that gene as well. In other words, it's a gene for a division of reproductive labour between brothers,which reduces reproductively costly competition for mates (you only need one male for multiple females), and which could, in fact, provide enough survival advantage for the genetic pattern to be favoured by natural selection.

Answer 5

(It would make sense. It would be a step up on the evolutionary chart.)
Although I believe this to be untrue. Our sexual preference is different, not the ability to breed. I thought I would make a statement about it as if I did. It is a moot argument. I believe it just to be another part of nature.

Now if someone were to say that the government created HIV/AIDS as a population control then I would say well no, that is just paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Answer 6

Interesting. No not really. Agree..? Not.

Having children is a choice. Many heterosexuals cannot conceive children for a multitude of medical reasons.

Today...we all can have children using a wide range of natural and or medical technology.

Evol. Pop. Cont. (EPC) could be a term better used for really fugly people.....? Maybe kids in high school would start calling the "uglies" EPC'rs. In jest...of course.

Answer 7

There aren't enough gay people to be a natural form of Population Control. Further, as a theory, it doesn't account for bisexuals.

Answer 8

It's possible. When species have a high mortality rate for their young (eg. 1 in 100 turtle eggs survive), it pays to be able to change genders easily; the young in alligator eggs change depending on the ambient temperature. For species with low morality rates, there are few young but well looked after (eg. apes, elephants).

Hermaphrodites are more common in lower species (reptiles, amphibians, insects) and exceedingly rare at the most advanced (mammals, generally). Homosexuality appears in _all_ species, not just human, so it may be a latent behaviour present throughout evolution.

Remember, the first single celled organisms had no gender, they reproduced by splitting and copying themselves, and all simple life forms (eg. worms) are bisexual, capable of impregnating and being impregnated. Male and female may be the oddity in nature, and bisexuality the norm.

Read Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" for better examples than I can give. He lists over 200 known instances of homosexual behaviour in animals as recorded by wildlife biologists in the last 150 years.


.

Answer 9

I've thought about that too. Of course, with our science abilities, we can reproduce anyway (haha, God, joke's on you!!). But sure, why not? I'd love to think that I've evolved farther than some of the rest of society, and that my evolutionary purpose is to love and raise children that others were unable to.

(though I plan on having my own biological children....)

Answer 10

No, I don't think so...I think that 'avian flu' 'tsunamis' 'AIDS' and other causes are population control...homosexuality ..no...Homosexuals can still have children..they don't necessarily have to enjoy the sex...but it is all friction and can and has been done for children.