Buffman

pescifish

(Did something just disappear? I was about to take a stab at defining overpopulation.)

"That point at which the number to be fed exceeds the capacity of our naturaL resources to feed them without a commensurate reduction in the standard of living." (Naturally that includes potable water and breathable air.)

In the first world countries it means two cars in every garage and the gas to run them whose cost doesn't put the owner in the poor house. Thus, drill in the Arctic, drill immediately off any and all shorelines regardless of potential spill disasters, attack Iraq; but don't create a modern Manhatten Project to develop new/alternative, environmentally safe, cost effective, sources of energy. And whatever you do, don't suggest conservation or rationing to the American public in an election year.)

In other words, David's question is more in line with economics, sociology and politics than evolution. He has suggested that homosexuals might help to stabilize population growth as part of some grand master plan of evolution. (Cloning would probably accomplish that. Perhaps even high level government stem cell research.)

Aside: I have to wonder if Homeland Security is designed to protect us from terrorists, or to protect the government from us when our standard of living begins to really go into the dumper because of political expediency rather than statesmen-like long term planning. Currently, I would estimate that approximately 17% of the world's population uses around 70% of the annual natural resources consumed. Though some folks don't seem to believe it, natural resources are finite. Though, in the past, technology and science have been able to keep up with demand and an increasing standard of living in many first world nations, one must wonder if it can continue to keep up with those in the second and third world nations as they demand a comparable increase in their standards of living? I suspect that the real population growth control will come from the Natural Resources Wars of the near future...not an increase in homosexuality.

Jayhawker Soule

If you control the mechanisms of evolution, you control the mechanisms of evolution. That may well serve as an interesting topic in its own right, but I don't understand what relevancy it has to this thread. It seems to me that evolution does, in fact, function as a seive. It seems to me that evolution does not operate as a sentimental strategist endorsing homosexuality as an alternative to starvation and predation.

As for what is now a "necessity for humanity", homosexuality better not prove our most effective means of birth control.

Jayhawker Soule

I have two addition questions about 'homosexuality' in nonhuman species:<ol type="1">[*]Do those engaging in same-sex activity produce fewer offspring?[*]If not, does this result in a smaller social unit?[/list=a]

scigirl

I agree with pescifish - this question is a big one:
scigirl

pescifish

Yeah, sorry 'bout that -- I edited it to match another post I had made to keep the discussion in one place. I was hoping my edit was done soon enough and during the wee hours to be still 'fresh'. This sounds like a reasonable definition to me. Assuming it's an acceptable one, then how could environments be so controlled for a long enough period of time to measure both reproductive and sexual trends? If the real world is used as the sample, then how can you control the rates at which individuals move in and out of the overpopulated environment? Or the rate at which the overpopulation condition itself changes?

Another clarification I would want is whether the question involves a necessity simply for an increase in sex with a member of the same gender (which can and is often practiced by people who are not homosexual) or an increase in the number of people for whom homosexuality is their fundamental preference. I.e., do we need to define and measure 'homosexuality' as well?

Bree

This doesn't really answer your question:
Out of the number of lesbians I know personally (meaning IRL) a good percentage have something wrong with their reproductive systems. For example, Jekyll and I both have endometriosis. Others have had ovarian cysts, dysplasia, and even cancer. We couldn't have children even if we did want to have sex with men.

Pointless food for thought.

K.P. Miller

Hi all... this is my first post, because a friend just told me about this page today. I saw this thread and wanted to comment.

There are a couple of things that this question is assuming... one is that homosexuality exists in humans, and other people have argued that it exists in animals. This is hardly an assumption that one can make. I'm not saying that people who identify as gay/lesbian are doing so dishonestly, I'm simply suggesting that the category of "homosexual" is a cultural one. People in Western culture who tend to have sex exclusively with members of their own sex are understood to be gay/lesbian, but this is by no means a universal understanding (although some researchers have argued that this tendency exists in some form in all cultures).

If you're purely discussing homosexual behavior, not some innate predisposition toward only being attracted to the same sex (for whatever reason, genetic or environmental), then the tone of the discussion changes. This is what we see in primates - a tendency for some primate species to engage in homosexual behavior, although not exclusively. One argument I've heard to explain this phenomenon is that sexuality can be used to diffuse conflict and create social cohesion, or serves other social purposes.

All this being said, I'd have to say that I don't see that a good argument can be made for homosexuality being an evolutionary advantage or necessity. Another argument, the argument that homosexuals provide for the (extended) family while not burdening the family with additional offspring, is fairly unconvincing as well, although not impossible. However, the fact that homosexual behavior has existed throughout history and in other species tends to suggest that it is, at the least, not an inherently negative trait. But to argue that it might be an evolutionary necessity seems unsupportable, or at least overly ambitious.

Doubting Didymus

Thats the theory I was talking about earlier. I think this might at least be a factor, though probably not the only or most important one.

Think about it: Ants have evolved the ability to produce sterile males, to help the hive but not compete with it. It's at least a possibility that similar factor might be working on human populations.

All of this does rather assume that biology has some influence over homosexual tendancy, which is quite possible but again, probably not the only factor.

Buffman

pescifish

(Thanks for the confirmation info. I thought I had been day-dreaming.)

This sounds like a reasonable definition to me. Assuming it's an acceptable one, then how could environments be so controlled for a long enough period of time to measure both reproductive and sexual trends?

I was merely attempting to see if I could find an acceptable definition for "overpopulation," not how overpopulation was related to any possible increase in homosexuality as a mechanism for population control. I can find nothing to support that latter possibility. However, about the only country that has even attempted to control the environment (and I am stretching to claim that) in order to regulate population growth would appear to be China. However, I would have great difficulty accepting their statistical data evidence. Not because I believe they would intentionally fudge their figures, but because I more suspect that their data collection process was flawed.

If the real world is used as the sample, then how can you control the rates at which individuals move in and out of the overpopulated environment?

From a purely practical standpoint, I do not see that as an insurmountable problem. Prior to the demise of the USSR, I would call the mass movement of peoples between East and West as statistically negligible. (Most nations of the world do not have borders as porous as America's...either because of geography or armed intervention.)

Or the rate at which the overpopulation condition itself changes?

Ever see "Solent Green?" (Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson)

Another clarification I would want is whether the question involves a necessity simply for an increase in sex with a member of the same gender (which can and is often practiced by people who are not homosexual) or an increase in the number of people for whom homosexuality is their fundamental preference. I.e., do we need to define and measure 'homosexuality' as well?

I think I'm on your wave length. I am of the opinion that at least 80% of humankind is genetically bi-sexual in varying degrees of hormone production. Thus, cultural factors most certainly would play a role in reproductive drive-sexual energy release preferences.

D.D.

But ants have only one Queen who is capable of repopulating the entire colony.

RufusAtticus

Hmmmm, I wonder if any studies have been done to see if increase in same-sex preference/decrease in other-sex preference coincides with fertility problems. . . . (Other than of course the obvious potential behavioral one. )

Hmmm, this also brings up another question. Are bisexual women (or even lesbians) more attracted to men when they are ovulating?

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>