Moved: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

[Base groove]

If it was a genetic adaptation how would it be passed on?

procreation.

 

[peoplesuck]

How do 2 gay people pass their genes down, other than through a 3rd party?

 

[Base groove]

How do 2 gay people pass their genes down, other than through a 3rd party?

Same way one gay person does it, or three.

What are you trying to figure out dude? I'm waiting for the punch line.

 

[peoplesuck]

._.

 

[DaviPop]

*cracks knuckles*

Homosexual behavior has probably existed since the dawn of differently sexed species, so it predates humans. Homosexual behavior has been referenced by cultures all over the world and throughout history. The Torah mentions it and remember that most of the Torah probably existed in some form as historical records and laws and oral tradition of the early, polytheistic Hebrews long before it was compiled into the earliest versions of what we know today. Homosexual behavior has also been mentioned in the ancient writings of Babylonians, Egyptians, various Middle Eastern cultures, China, Japan, and more. Homosexual behavior was expected of males in Greek and Roman societies.

Keep in mind that particularly pre-agriculture societies had very different conceptualizations of gender and sex that seems to indicate that not only was homosexual behavior a part of their lives but so was transgenderism.

Homosexual behavior is not modern, it's very, very old and has been observed in many different species.

What is fairly modern is homosexual culture. It's hard to say what the first examples of homosexual culture are, the earliest I've read about was an underground, British homosexual dandy scene dating somewhere around the late 1600's but there were probably older ones.

An important thing to note is that there were no "heterosexuals" before there was a "homosexual" that the heterosexual could exist in contrast to. Note that in anti-sodomy laws of Medevil Europe and the Torah that the wording implies homosexuality is an act, and thus something that anyone is capable of. The dichotomy of heterosexual and homosexual is a fairly modern invention. Many early cultures had words that referred to the act and before the modern era of psychoanalysis words like "heterosexual" or "homosexual", which tie the acts to an identity, simply do not exist.

As for the evolutionary psychology/biology of homosexuality I haven't read anything substantial. However, I once read that it's been observed in several animal communities the higher prevalence of homosexual behavior the lower the prevalence of inter-community competition and the more cohesive the animals work as a group.

That's fairly interesting, to me. It reminds me of the umbrella-concept of Two-Spirited people. Two-spirits were transgender/third gender individuals who were either born gender-typed male and performed as female or vice versa. To the Navajo and other cultures with similar concepts these people were revered for their wisdom and often served the roles of spiritual leaders, doctors, and resolvers of conflict in their societies. There was a Zuni ambassador to European-descended Americans named We'wha who was Two-Spirited. In the 1800's white observers of the Zuni had this to say about We'wha...

“Strong character made his word law among both men and women with whom he associated."

This isn't to falsely conflate genderqueer/trans-identified people with homosexuals but since I'm talking about the ways animals relate to homosexual behavior vs cultures that had entirely different conceptualizations of gender (in essence, that gender was mostly performative) from the prevalent modern Euro-Christian model comparison is going to get pretty murky.

 

[StevenM]

I wonder (in regards to exclusive homosexuality), why they would get the same instinctual drives and desires to procreate, if it's not possible to do so?

Edit: On further reflection, I guess I failed to consider that exclusive homosexuality is actually a modern occurrence. I don't know.

 

[DaviPop]

^^^^

Well it's not that exclusive homosexual behavior is a modern or purely human invention, it's that homosexuality as a culture and an identity is modern. Keep in mind, that's just like how heterosexuality as a culture and an identity is modern.

And sexual identity does not always conflate with sexual acts. Of course there's the entire concept of being in the closet. But furthermore there's what I call the "heteroflexible". I've known het-identified people who have had homosexual sex and these people tend to be confident in their heterosexual identity than most.

Also think of bisexuals. A bisexual does not need to have sex with both men and women before their identity as a bisexual is valid.

Furthermore, not all heterosexuals or others who desire hetero sex necessarily have a drive to procreate and heterosexuals who cannot procreate may also possess a drive to procreate.

EDIT: Basically what I'm getting at is that sexual identity is complicated and I believe that drive to procreate exists independent of sexual identity. Thus the answer to the question is "for the same reason heterosexual's do"

 

[peoplesuck]

Good question TMills27

 

[Variform]

Re: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

I don't think so. The way I see it (and I very well may be wrong), is that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors. i.e. the homosexual individual's own life experiences. I'm not saying that I think there is some underlying cause of homosexuality. Rather, I'm saying that I think it's a result of the individual's thought processes as they develop into maturity.

That is just plain wrong. Homosexuality is genetic. It is not psychological.

I can't believe this intelligent design shit is still going around. You are venting christian fundamentalist views. I rather have you not do so.

 

[Variform]

If it was a genetic adaptation how would it be passed on?

In the same way most of our DNA is. Scientists until recently called it 'junk DNA'. These imbeciles actually believed that most of the human genome was just junk! How far off the deep end does a person on Earth calling himself a scientist have to be to seriously use that term?

 

[Variform]

Re: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

I agree with Hawkeye.

Mutations happen at random. Therefore, they are random.

No, mutations can happen under environmental pressure. Within just a couple of generations a plant can adapt to new circumstances. It has the genetic adaptability to do so.

 

[Pyropyro]

I doubt a species would naturally produce a trait that is designed to reduce their population overtime. If they somehow did this then it will only take a few generations before they become extinct. External factors such as predators, diseases etc. tend to reduce their numbers for them.

As for the overpopulation bit, why turn gay when there are much easier methods to reduce our numbers such as the use of contraceptives?

 

[Jennywocky]

I wonder (in regards to exclusive homosexuality), why they would get the same instinctual drives and desires to procreate, if it's not possible to do so?

Note that with the rat experiments where they "created" gay rats of both genders by injecting counter-hormones during the specific window of opportunity during brain development, the rats all still wanted to have sex -- but the male gay rats would present themselves for sex like a female would, while the gay females would try to mount the other rats.

They didn't lose their desire to have sex. They just behaved as the other gender in sexual encounters. These are old experiments too -- I think running back into the 70's and onwards?

Obviously the programming there allows for sexual drive + gay interests.

EDIT: I think it's interesting how you can change the expressed gender of alligator eggs (and some other amphibians/reptiles?) simply by changing the temperature of the eggs. Genes say one thing, environment controls the expression.

As for the overpopulation bit, why turn gay when there are much easier methods to reduce our numbers such as the use of contraceptives?

Because Hobby Lobby + Rick Santorum? ... oh wait...

 

[StevenM]

Note that with the rat experiments where they "created" gay rats of both genders by injecting counter-hormones during the specific window of opportunity during brain development, the rats all still wanted to have sex -- but the male gay rats would present themselves for sex like a female would, while the gay females would try to mount the other rats.

They didn't lose their desire to have sex. They just behaved as the other gender in sexual encounters. These are old experiments too -- I think running back into the 70's and onwards?

Obviously the programming there allows for sexual drive + gay interests.

Seems like the answer to the age-old mystery then.

 

[WookieeB]

Re: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

That is just plain wrong. Homosexuality is genetic. It is not psychological.

I can't believe this intelligent design shit is still going around. You are venting christian fundamentalist views. I rather have you not do so.

In the same way most of our DNA is. Scientists until recently called it 'junk DNA'. These imbeciles actually believed that most of the human genome was just junk! How far off the deep end does a person on Earth calling himself a scientist have to be to seriously use that term?

You do realize that it is evolutionary biologists/neo-darwinists that believe in "junk DNA" and not the intelligent design proponents. Intelligent design argues against junk-DNA.

I agree with Jenny in that homosexuality is probably a combination of effects of bio and environment. It is too complicated an issue thought to confidently peg as absolutely one or the other.

For the biology part, I think it is likely an genetic abnormality akin to something like Down syndrome.

 

[kris]

Re: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

That is just plain wrong. Homosexuality is genetic. It is not psychological.

There is reason to believe it is biological, though not necessarily the result of direct genetic inheritance.

In the same way most of our DNA is. Scientists until recently called it 'junk DNA'. These imbeciles actually believed that most of the human genome was just junk! How far off the deep end does a person on Earth calling himself a scientist have to be to seriously use that term?

'Junk dna' is a colloquial term, as I understand it. In its early usage, 'junk' was distinguished from trash in that the latter gets thrown out, yet the former is often stored in the attic and at times pulled from storage and reused or repurposed. Research into the functions of non-coding dna goes back decades, so it's not true that scientists only 'recently' made a change in their conception of this large set of genes. It's not true that the people who initially used the term 'junk dna' were imbeciles.

If you're suggesting that there is a hidden gay gene which periodically surfaces from non-coding dna, I'd be keen to read any research indicating this. Last I read, the most promising line of inquiry was looking at other epigenetic factors from maternal influence.

Some hypotheses link incidence of male homosexual offspring with increased female fecundity. There is also an older hypothesis about how gay men could serve in non-competitive co-parent roles (gay uncle hypothesis) helping raise the survival rate of a family's offspring. I don't know how far along researchers are in these various avenues, but they are concepts which work well together.

Many people in this day and age have an odd notion that individuals need to pass on their genes, but in most cases, that isn't true. What is important is gene frequencies in populations, so unless one possesses a unique trait, it's not so critical that every individual passes down their genetics themselves. If I had ten siblings, for instance, there's a good chance the genes I have mostly exist in other members of the family. If If a trait exists which increases the fertility of my family's women at the expense of the odd male being gay, it could be a neutral or even beneficial trait. If, on top of that, those gay individuals help promote the survival of other offspring in the family, there is a net benefit to passing down the genes of my family.

I'm butchering the science a little with that explanation, but I'm not trying to establish how homosexuality works in fact. While our scientific understanding of gender and sexual orientation increases with time, much of it doesn't appear to be all that conclusive of a specific biological cause at present time. I doubt it's the best funded area of research by a long shot. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of different angles to consider as well as different hypotheses to consider.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Addressing OP: yes. It is.

So uhm... actually getting to this thread ( ) it's partly a repeat of this one.

Prodding the main misconceptions I see ITT:

-We don't need to be conscious of an adaptation in order for it to be an adaptation.

-In terms of mendelian genetics and basic concepts of inheritance, an x-linked gene for hypersexuality would result in a relatively constant proportion of the population being homosexual or bisexual. Baseline support for this exists in the Kinsey scale. Of course it's by no means that simple, but that's the basic concept in terms of something that can be selected.

-The reason it's not that easy is because of other means of inheritance (cultural, environmental, etc). For example, using population density alone isn't a good indicator at all if the population resides in a developed country with ample access to resources, which effectively stifles the effects of overpopulation in animal populations. There are also other limiting factors to population growth to consider, such as the cost of raising a child, etc. There may also be other selective forces operating against homosexuality (persecution). Basically, Japan and overpopulated Sub-Saharan Africa are terrible empirical examples and must be examined holistically as case studies.

-I never understood the persecution of gays by some straight men. If anything it means there's less competition for available women...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

No. Evolution is slow, over-population is recent.

Adaptation =/= evolution, and punctuated equilibrium ftw.

Evolution is an unguided random process.

Do you even science?

(formatting added)

Random is just a way of saying "we don't know" but with a label.

*sides with Hawkeye in the randomness discussion with Lot*

I disagree strongly with this. Evolution is purposeless, random. Absolutely purposeless. Instances where it is deemed successful are a matter of probability AND happenstance, only.

Yeah I continued reading and saw your attempts to prove it. I remain unconvinced. Simply because there are complex/higher order adaptations that require successful implementation of earlier adaptations, does not rule out the possibility that there exist many possible adaptations that could also enable the evolution of the same complex adaptation, a similar, or even a better one.

Explain how this is not just an application of the anthropic principle?

The easiest example is sexual selection. If bitches think dogs with big floppy ears look sexy and cock block those with tiny ears because of it, the next generation will contain more dogs with big floppy ears.

There's a degree of purpose involved, and the capacity of that degree is a function of the cognitive capacity of the individuals evaluating mates. Presumably the female assesses the male based on her conception/understanding of what big floppy ears can do. Consider that mutations apply to both sides.

I'd really, really, really like to see Perceptual Control Theory formally incorporated into evolution. But yeah, I'd rather make money and fuck bitches instead... er.... uh...

I formally request THD to join this conversation; I am not well equipped to battle Hawkeye on this matter (affirmation that he is correct is sufficient).

Hawkeye's entirely correct.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Homosexual behavior was expected of males in Greek and Roman societies.

The only reason I'm quoting this is because it gives me an excuse to use "irrumatio" in a sentence.

I wonder (in regards to exclusive homosexuality), why they would get the same instinctual drives and desires to procreate, if it's not possible to do so?

Edit: On further reflection, I guess I failed to consider that exclusive homosexuality is actually a modern occurrence. I don't know.

I doubt a species would naturally produce a trait that is designed to reduce their population overtime. If they somehow did this then it will only take a few generations before they become extinct. External factors such as predators, diseases etc. tend to reduce their numbers for them.

As for the overpopulation bit, why turn gay when there are much easier methods to reduce our numbers such as the use of contraceptives?

Genetics isn't the only form of inheritance. There are also environmental and cultural means. The three likely combine in some weird, complex, and poorly understood way that will only serve to foster a few dozen more centuries of cultural and political infighting.

Also... monogamy/marriage is apparently the modern occurrence that's mucking up the system, imho.

 

[tobbA]

I do think that the persecution of homosexuals in history is at least related to population control. For the same reasons women needed to have a large amount of babies to keep the population from declining, men needed to be there to impregnate them. In cultures where a great deal of the men had died in battle, the few who were left needed to work harder at reproducing. Hence masturbation and homosexuality among men was prohibited, so that no sperm would go to waste.

 

[Variform]

I am not convinced that evolution is without purpose. From the Big Bang until now we see complexification. If evolution is a random process, why is there a trend towards increasing tiers of complex organization?

It is not just biology. Or nature. It is the universe itself that reaches increasing levels of complexity.

Homosexuality is a genetic, so natural phenomenon, which is more complex than simple heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the way by which procreation is achieved. But there are other possibilities in nature.

Homosexuality therefore seems not needed for procreation, yet it is present in populations of humans as well as other animals. You have to wonder why. What is the advantage that these genes keep being present in the human race? Since gay people cannot reproduce, where does it come from?

I think perhaps homosexuality is a trait in nature with certain advantages. I can see how this gene is beneficial to control human population. But then what triggers it to become more active? And does it become more active?

The fact is, there is no explanation given in biology or evolution theory about the complexification of the universe. We take it for granted that things get ever more complex, but it is such a given, such paradigmatic thinking that no one ever explained it.

The human brain is the single most complex structure we know to exists in the universe, for so far we have been able to detect. I wonder what next tier of complexification will be reached, based on this achieved level.

Since all previous tiers reached became the platform for new levels of complexity, our brain should be the new platform.

It might be that homosexuality will be needed to reach a new level. That heterosexual breeding will be outdated and that there will be novel ways for procreation reached where you do not need a male and a female. In so that this duality we have at our very fundament is left behind.

 

[kris]

Sometimes you need to do less thinking and more reading (then go back to thinking).

 

[Variform]

Too much reading clouds the mind. Sometimes it is better to come to thoughts by themselves. This thought however comes from another. Through reading.

 

[kris]

Hmm... I wrote a more thoughtful response, but somehow it got swallowed up by the internets. Perhaps I forgot to actually submit the post.

Obviously you can think and post what you want, but you're spinning your wheels on issues which have already advanced from your starting points. In some cases you're possibly even going in the wrong direction.

• Evolution is not held to be random on the whole.
• There is research into selection for complexity or simplicity within the field of biology. it's not taken for granted that complexity always increases. I'm not sure on cosmology or other areas of science, but I wouldn't bother making any assumptions at this point in time.
• Research into the genetics of homosexuality has revealed some potential genes related to sexual orientation, but it isn't conclusive and doesn't offer a complete explanation.
• The same goes for epigenetic factors.
• Gay animals can and do reproduce, though they are less likely to do so.
• Homosexuality does not necessarily lead to population reduction. Some hypotheses suggest the contrary, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing is conclusive.

While you certainly do not have to agree with all current research on the subject -- it may even prove problematic to do so -- I find it hard to believe that making yourself aware of work others have already done on the subject matter would 'cloud' you.

 

[BigApplePi]

post your thoughts

My first thought is: Why did they move what? My 2nd thought is: Sex is a rather neat thing. It allows different people to reproduce and get more random results which means better adaptation versus the clone thing. My impression of homosexuality is it is imperfectly polarized sexuality. Polarized sexuality is a great way to draw people together with different genes.

Now what would homosexuality have to do with population? you want more population heterosexuality is a good idea. Homosexuality would be frowned on. That wouldn't change the inclination if imperfect polarization is built in. But if you dislike more population, homosexuality would be more socially approved I would think. That means more visibility.

Now would this inherent homosexuality increase? Yes because as gay marriage becomes more and more approved reproduction would reproduce more and more imperfect polarizations.

Wait. Hold on ... homosexuals can't reproduce (with each other). My mistake. I forgot. I'm rong. I guess their numbers will remain the same until we can figure out what sexuality is in the 1st place. Good luck with that.

 

[Variform]

Hmm... I wrote a more thoughtful response, but somehow it got swallowed up by the internets. Perhaps I forgot to actually submit the post.

I learned to do an alt-c every time before I post and in long posts I copy my progress anyway.

Obviously you can think and post what you want, but you're spinning your wheels on issues which have already advanced from your starting points. In some cases you're possibly even going in the wrong direction.

• Evolution is not held to be random on the whole.
• There is research into selection for complexity or simplicity within the field of biology. it's not taken for granted that complexity always increases. I'm not sure on cosmology or other areas of science, but I wouldn't bother making any assumptions at this point in time.
• Research into the genetics of homosexuality has revealed some potential genes related to sexual orientation, but it isn't conclusive and doesn't offer a complete explanation.
• The same goes for epigenetic factors.
• Gay animals can and do reproduce, though they are less likely to do so.
• Homosexuality does not necessarily lead to population reduction. Some hypotheses suggest the contrary, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing is conclusive.

While you certainly do not have to agree with all current research on the subject -- it may even prove problematic to do so -- I find it hard to believe that making yourself aware of work others have already done on the subject matter would 'cloud' you.

It is only a matter of time before they find the genes that result in homosexuality. Just wait and see. Not knowing exactly now cuts both ways.

 

[Variform]

My first thought is: Why did they move what? My 2nd thought is: Sex is a rather neat thing. It allows different people to reproduce and get more random results which means better adaptation versus the clone thing. My impression of homosexuality is it is imperfectly polarized sexuality. Polarized sexuality is a great way to draw people together with different genes.

Now what would homosexuality have to do with population? you want more population heterosexuality is a good idea. Homosexuality would be frowned on. That wouldn't change the inclination if imperfect polarization is built in. But if you dislike more population, homosexuality would be more socially approved I would think. That means more visibility.

Now would this inherent homosexuality increase? Yes because as gay marriage becomes more and more approved reproduction would reproduce more and more imperfect polarizations.

Wait. Hold on ... homosexuals can't reproduce (with each other). My mistake. I forgot. I'm rong. I guess their numbers will remain the same until we can figure out what sexuality is in the 1st place. Good luck with that.

It is all stupid.

Homosexuality is genetic and a very smart adaptation. It causes some percentage of the population not to breed. Humans are high-sexed animals. For us to breed in combination with our adaptability means we will breed ourselves into extinction.

Therefore the gene is present in our kind, to diminish over-breeding. It is a counter to our adaptability, that we can survive in difficult circumstances.

Just like plants can mutate within a few generations, invoking genetic traits that cause a plant species to adapt to the changing weather patterns or other pressures from the environment, humans will see more homosexuality when the pressure on us becomes greater.

And the only reason we are not seeing this is because of oil. Oil shields us from the consequences of our over-breeding. So most people have reasonable lives. When oil peaks more than it already does, we will see more and more people in future generations be homosexuals.

The whole idea if evolution clouded our mind. That normalcy equals a man and a woman breeding. But it is skweed thinking. It is a sort of confirmation bias.

Humans have the ability to love the same sex. This too is evolutionary arranged. It is all just one big happy family of humans that fuck each other every which way possible. And that creates a balance. There is no limitation, that means that a gay person can have kids because there is no inherent cultural predisposition. Any person, man or woman can fuck any man or woman. So the gay gene is constantly being replenished.

Even in the 50's of last century we had gay men marry women and have kids. This was a sociological pressure but also an evolutionary issue. Men reproduced to continue the gay genes. This is an inner drive in gay people. Gay people want to have kids too you know.

In todays' society we can adopt. But in nature gay people, when the gene is dorment and not needed by environmental pressures, will happily impregnate women. And vice versa. Gay people are awesome, because they have a special built-in genetic adaptability that straight people do not have.

Gay people are the balancers of the friction between the changing environment that triggers our adaptability and the need for peopulation control.

In my country we had a great riot a few years back, we had a natural wild enclave, fenced off, where deer and wild horses can roam freely. We thought we were so enlightened! A real wildlife park.

Then we had a few bad winters and there was no more food and there were too few predators. We saw footage on tv of deer, literally dying, as they walked, then collpased, falling with its head in a pond, dying of malnutrion and drowning because it had no more strength to lift its head up. Maybe it was suicde, thinking about it.

Big riot! This is inhumane! We need to provide extra hay so they can feed. It is an illusion to think nature can deal with itself! It is just a park but without animal care!

For humans it is the same issue. The idea that if you get too many animals outsripping the rate of replenishment of food, they will die out, become a good food source for predators, then when the population is culled, the predators have little food elft and die out themselves and balance is restored.

The gay gene is what does that. But it is not through predation by another species, but an adaptation within our own genome, to make sure we don't breed so many people that we stripmine our environment.

And look at what we do as humans. We strip mine the planet. And the only reason we can is because oil shields us from our own genes.

If oil peaks and life becomes much harder, we will see loads of people turn out to be gay.

It will probably work like this, that when a family is poor, they won't have enough food. The body will recognize this. When a woman gets pregnant, the likelihood the gay gene is switched on, is greater. Their child will have a greater chance to be born a homosexual.

In places where there is little food, people tend to get more children, because they need kids to take care of them as they grow old. But this is a cultural notion. Not evolutionary. Evolution would be mad to have women get more babies in times of scarcity! There already is no food, why have more babies?

Evolution is smarter than that. I think the reason why so many African people are so homophobic is because they live in a culture, often islam and christianity, that states that homo's are bad. And so they have many more gay people in Africa than we have in western society, all these people pretending to be 'normal. So gay violence is bigger there, because of the repression and lack of acceptance. So Africa is poor, loads of malnutrition, therefore more gay people. We just aren't seeing that because no one will admit to it.

 

[Jennywocky]

It is only a matter of time before they find the genes that result in homosexuality. Just wait and see. Not knowing exactly now cuts both ways.

Hmmmm....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/

In 1993, American geneticist Dean Hamer found families with several gay males on the mother’s side, suggesting a gene on the X chromosome. He showed that pairs of brothers who were openly gay shared a small region at the tip of the X, and proposed that it contained a gene that predisposes a male to homosexuality.

Hamer’s conclusions were extremely controversial. He was challenged at every turn by people unwilling to accept that homosexuality is at least partly genetic, rather than a “lifestyle choice.”

This year, a larger study of gay brothers, using the many genetic markers now available through the Human Genome Project, confirmed the original finding and also detected another “gay gene” on chromosome 8. This has unleashed a new flurry of comment.

But why such a furor when we know of gay gene variants in species from flies to mammals? Homosexuality is quite common throughout the animal kingdom. For instance, there are variants that influence mating preference in mice, and a mutation in the fruit fly makes males court other males instead of females...

The gene in question might be considered a "male-attracted" gene, which of course is beneficial to females.

---

As far as Kris' suggestion, yes, I think we do better to walk within that careful balance between thinking and reading -- an excess of either allows for error to accumulate, either by being too detached from real-world data and information or by not thinking enough and getting lost in the trees so to speak.

 

[BrainVessel]

Overpopulation does not yet exist and there is evidence of homosexuality far earlier in history.

 

[tobbA]

So apparently the "gay gene" seems to be a gene that causes homosexuality in males. But in females it makes them like men even more, and so makes them more likely to have more children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...uality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/

Guess that's the overpopulation theory out the window?

Edit: Sorry... Didn't notice someone else just posted this. :P

 

[Variform]

Overpopulation does not yet exist and there is evidence of homosexuality far earlier in history.

It comes in different forms. Overpopulated can exists locally when people wanna cling together in an area that is undergoing climate changes. Food crops dwindle more every year, but people built cities and try to stay around.

After the LGM we had massive climate change.

 

[Adam01618]

This is an interesting topic, but I doubt evolution would make sure we get LESS kids, since that wouldn't benefit the population. The point of evolution is to make more babies. (Medal for most obvious statement awarded to me ^^ ). We aren't exactly hurt directly by overpopulation, since we still have enough resources to survive. Yet. Secondly, genes for becomming homosexual wouldn't be transferred to the kids, since homosexual couples generally get less kids. But that's just my thoughts on it.

 

[Jennywocky]

... Secondly, genes for becomming homosexual wouldn't be transferred to the kids, since homosexual couples generally get less kids. But that's just my thoughts on it.

Do you think there is just a binary "homosexual" gene or something?

Have you considered that maybe it's a multiplicity of genes that can combine together (sometimes with environment factors in utero, perhaps) that can easily be present in both gay and straight people, so that as long as the right combination is passed down, someone can come to identify as same-sex attraction regardless of the attractions of the parents?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Is there no one but me who thinks that homosexuality fulfills the same role as does menopause?

In other species of apes females remain fertile until the end, but in humans menopause frees up older women thereby allowing them to focus on supporting the younger generation. Remember, following bipedalism the human pelvis narrowed in turn resulting in human babies being born prematurely so as to allow them to pass through the birth canal. That coupled with the fact that human offspring take a long time to grow up means there is a lot of caretaking needed to be done. If you have a group of 10-100 humans living together a few of them being uninterested in the opposite sex means they can help rear the children of others or focus solely on the gathering of resources.

I already wrote this once, so sorry if my repeating myself is annoying.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

This is an interesting topic, but I doubt evolution would make sure we get LESS kids, since that wouldn't benefit the population. The point of evolution is to make more babies. (Medal for most obvious statement awarded to me ^^ ). We aren't exactly hurt directly by overpopulation, since we still have enough resources to survive. Yet. Secondly, genes for becomming homosexual wouldn't be transferred to the kids, since homosexual couples generally get less kids. But that's just my thoughts on it.

Sort of. Evolution is more about the continued life of genetic material as opposed to the number of bodies it may occupy. Plenty of things that make sense in an evolutionary context don't according to common sense. The mayfly, for example. They hatch and have all of ~3 days to breed before they die. They live for so short a time that they haven't even retained the physiology required to feed in their adult form. Common sense would dictate that it would be better if they lived longer, so they could reproduce more (and/or retained feeding physiology); but in reality they have a stable reproductive strategy because they all hatch at once, which increases predator avoidance, giving them enough time to mate and lay eggs before death.

We're also still in tune to resource availability (or perceived resource availability).

Spoiler

[bimgx=400]http://images.halloweencostumes.com/products/1468/1-1/sweet-daddy-pimp-costume.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Is there no one but me who thinks that homosexuality fulfills the same role as does menopause?

In other species of apes females remain fertile until the end, but in humans menopause frees up older women thereby allowing them to focus on supporting the younger generation. Remember, following bipedalism the human pelvis narrowed in turn resulting in human babies being born prematurely so as to allow them to pass through the birth canal. That coupled with the fact that human offspring take a long time to grow up means there is a lot of caretaking needed to be done. If you have a group of 10-100 humans living together a few of them being uninterested in the opposite sex means they can help rear the children of others or focus solely on the gathering of resources.

I already wrote this once, so sorry if my repeating myself is annoying.

But even some fertile individuals serve in that role. Remember the ol' "the aggressive males do the breeding and the nonaggressive raise the kids"?

Humanity is humanity because we're not as interested in reproduction as any other species. For example, nonhuman species that gather resources typically exchange them for... sex.

 

[kris]

Is there no one but me who thinks that homosexuality fulfills the same role as does menopause?

I've mentioned it elsewhere in the thread, but once posts get long it's understandable such things are overlooked. It's called the gay uncle hypothesis (along with variants of pretty much the same name). You can search it on the internets and it's, like, totally a real thing. So no, you are not alone in that view.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

No I think it's just the men

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An29bdpaY70

Wow, I started watching this and decided to watch to whole thing and...wow, as a society, they sound pretty fucked up. The men see relationships as too much work; the women don't have time to raise kids; they work too hard, are hard on people that don't follow the traditions of the culture, can't take care of their elderly, and expect people to be okay with all of this. Bizarre. I wonder if this works to explain their high suicide rates as well?

 

[Adam01618]

Do you think there is just a binary "homosexual" gene or something?

Have you considered that maybe it's a multiplicity of genes that can combine together (sometimes with environment factors in utero, perhaps) that can easily be present in both gay and straight people, so that as long as the right combination is passed down, someone can come to identify as same-sex attraction regardless of the attractions of the parents?

Of course I know this. That is why I used "genes" in plural. However, I expressed myself unclearly. Let's make the assumption that the more you have of genes that contribute to homosexuality, the more likely you are to be homosexual. This is a simplification and some are more "powerful" in this regard than others, but I don't know the exact workings of it. A combination of many of these genes is then less likely to be transferred to the offspring, since homosexual parents have fewer kids. Thus, low concentrations are more succesful over the generations.

I do realise my knowledge here is limited. Could someone with experience in genetic reasearch please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[JansenDowel]

Here is an article written by Steven Pinker on the false allure of group selection.
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

To answer your question; I seriously doubt it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

note that Robert Sapolsky also explains homosexuality be means of inclusive fitness, apparently kids with parents with a homosexual sibling do have an advantage

 

[SpaceYeti]

The gene which aids not reproducing will not be selected for.

 

[Cherry Cola]

its not that simple, homosexuality might aid the furthering of genes under specific circumstances, much like fraternal polyandry

 

[Yellow]

If you put 10 mice in a cage with enough resources to provide for 100 mice, you will get a population explosion until you go just over 100. Then, without any effort on your part, and without any famine or war or breeding programs, the mouse population will stabilize around 100. It's a biological law.

We are subject to the same laws as any other animal, and I think we are approaching our population limit for our current environment (which is basically the planet right now). All of the genetic factors that will contribute to slow population growth (which probably include homosexuality and other inclinations that reduce breeding) already exist.

I highly doubt there are significantly more homosexual people now than 1000 years ago. It's just that 1000 years ago, they had to live a heterosexual lifestyle anyway. Their native populations pressured them to breed. Those who were too averse to heterosexual behavior were obviously removed from the gene pool. Those who could respond to pressure (however unpleasant it was for them) continued to contribute.

Now, we don't need as many babies, so we have the luxury (and the need) to allow the homosexual members of our population to abstain from breeding.

 

[SpaceYeti]

its not that simple, homosexuality might aid the furthering of genes under specific circumstances, much like fraternal polyandry

Maybe, but the fact that there doesn't seem to have been a "gay gene" discovered seems to indicate that it's not genetic anyhow. Maybe it is, but it's probably a combination of factors, not just a simple gene.

 

[Cherry Cola]

agreed

 

[peoplesuck]

this--> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/men-older-brothers-gay_n_3873772.html

 

[Yellow]

this--> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/men-older-brothers-gay_n_3873772.html

I really don't get why they jump to genetics with this one. It seems pretty obvious that this is an environmental thing. The more older brothers there are, the more likely they are to seem parental or at least impressive to the younger boys. Those feelings often become associated with sexual attraction, increasing the chances that the boys become sexually attracted to someone who they would associate with the older brother(s).

Or, more perversely, the more older brothers, the more likely that one of them will turn out to be a tot-toucher (proper pedophilia [as opposed to pederasty] begins in the teen years), which can lead to a victimization of younger brother(s) and a skewing of their sexual preferences as they mature.

 

[peoplesuck]

i didnt mean that as an"this is why its genetics" more as something interesting on the subject xd.
pervy rape kids
sad, sad, world

 

[onesteptwostep]

No, I think homosexuality is just a matter of sexual identity. If you feel like the dominant type, then you will be the 'male' whether or not you're a male or female. If you feel like the submissive type then you will be the 'female', whether or not you're literally male or not. I think our bodies simply dictate which role we should play, but, since our societies have advanced to the point where different role-play is possible without negative repercussions I think it's fine just to change it up. I think certain treatments can turn a homosexual into a herterosexual as much a heterosexual can turn into a homosexual, but that's another discussion all together.

Oh and to whomever said homosexual behavior was expected in Greek/Rome or whatever- it doesn't mean the person playing the submissive role didn't feel like they were being degraded