Is homosexuality an evolutionary technique to avoid overpopulation?

  • Probably! And it's not a bad thing, it's just nature's way of holding our population in check.

    I DO believe that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is a genetic "switch" that the individual has no control over. You are born with it. Yet this idea does not preclude the possibility that more humans are now being born with the switch set to "gay" in order to combat overpopulation naturally.
    In the same way that gazelles being fast enough to outrun their predators give them the ability to procreate (and propagate their species), the human species is evolving to the point that homosexuals are more abundant, slowing our population acceleration (and avoiding a massive overpopulation-extinction calamity).
    Please note that I did NOT say that homosexuals can not procreate, I am merely stating that they are less likely to do so.

  • Mother nature has her survival techniques

    As evidenced by incidences in nature where some animals can change their gender when threatened with extinction, I believe that, conversely, nature's way to prevent overpopulation by one species, and consequential destruction of habitat and food sources, is by altering this species' reproduction patterns. Since many of these gender changes in fish and other animals cannot be explained by scientists, I believe that the apparently rising tendency toward same-sex preferences likewise cannot be confirmed as a natural phenomenon. Homosexuality is not a voluntary sexual preference but rather a biological change, which likens it to other natural changes which can take place in animals.

  • I believe so.

    It seems like it would be beneficial as a consequence. Although homosexuality does not in all circumstances help to reduce population growth or the desire to have a children/family. I imagine it is a positive consequence to reduce it whether it is biologically based or not. The mechanism does help the herd survive.

  • It is a very real possibility.

    The elastic nature of social ideologies (eg. Conservatism vs liberalism) is radically transitional for a reason. It behooves the human race to have more homosexuals. However, whether or not homosexuality is the result of this liberal trend, or the very foundation of it, I cannot say. Suffice it to say that it definitely counteracts overpopulation, simply because same-sex couples cannot reproduce a child.

  • It is a very real possibility.

    The elastic nature of social ideologies (eg. Conservatism vs liberalism) is radically transitional for a reason. It behooves the human race to have more homosexuals. However, whether or not homosexuality is the result of this liberal trend, or the very foundation of it, I cannot say. Suffice it to say that it definitely counteracts overpopulation, simply because same-sex couples cannot reproduce a child.

  • It's an interesting hypothesis

    I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, love is truly blind. I think it is an effect of the environment like so many things we attribute to human will but which are, in reality, results of our era and surroundings. I applaud the acceptance of homosexuality and voluntary birth control because the biggest problem facing our planet is over population which is the root of damn near all other problems, especially the environmental ones which will ultimately lead to a wave of eradication of vast quantities of life - human and otherwise.

  • Homosexuality prevalence is correlated with population growth.

    I don't think there's a natural reason to have homosexuals, but I do believe homosexuality is natural. I believe that if the rate of homosexuality on earth were to have been consistent through time (say 1% of total individuals) then there could be reason to believe there is some type of deep genetic combination causing this result.

    There's is no question about it, homosexuality seems to have become more and more popular over time. With the rise in world population exponentially increasing and group populations becoming more an more dense I believe the prevalence of homosexuals I'm specific locations is the reason why it has become some what of a noticeable trend. When the population of the US was half of what it is now (1950 150M people) it's safe to say homosexuals were not popular or even that prevalent. And as time went on and population grewore and more homosexuals also became close an close to each other (physically) allow there to be more interaction and developement.

    The development of a homosexual growing up may have a lot to do with other homosexuals being around them or not. In 1950 there was a lot less chance of two homosexuals being in the same age group, same location and social network to become friends. Now the population has doubled, more importantly, the populations are gathering near cities creating much greater density and increasing chances of homosexual incounters. These incounters are important because it allows homosexuals to be comfortable with being gay since it, after all, it's been tough for gays to be theirselves in our society.

    Our society has come to terms with homosexuality more so because of the renneissance created by te LGBT community. Because more gays were able to incounter and break any doubt they had about their sexuality, more of them were able to unite and let everyone know it's okay to be gay.

    The natural process of all of this is the direct result of population density. Many expert bts have been done that shows the effects of a crowded space. This natural effect is noticeable throughout time and we are reaching a point where homosexuality is an equal form of life.

    So going forward, asexuality seems to be the more presenting model that would prove this natural occurance. I hope this read was interesting and not too much jabber.

  • Humans don't know anything about nature's plan.

    Just because we discovered a few things about life doesn't mean we have complete knowledge about everything,the only thing we do is just destroy whatever comes in our path but call it creation,it is pure madness to nature's eyes and her other creatures who would never dare go this far,homosexuality is just a hormone that soon or later will be activated within every single human on the planet to make us pay for abusing the power of life.
    "Geneticists has found the existence of a gay gene that all humans and animals contain within them and which is turned on or off like a switch depending on the environment of the individual."

  • Humans don't know anything about mothernature's plan.

    Just because we discovered few things about life doesn't mean we know everything there is to know,we were once like all the other animals,programmed to pass on life so it doesn't expire,everything changed when a monkey decided to stand on his feet,now it's just a matter of time we destroy everything by wanting to take control over the universe who doesn't belong to us but to nature?The only reason I think we haven't all auto-destructed ourselves yet it's because nature promised not kill all at once but slowly fading till extinction,heterosexuals have the purpose to procreate and homosexual the opposite,not to procreate offsprings,it's quite unnatural to see homosexuals procreating because it's not their job.

  • Don't restrict the idea

    Homosexuality is a mutation in certain genes or a learned behavior from the environment. That does not mean it has to be only in overpopulated species, and by the way, how are you defining overpopulation? Maybe giraffes were overpopulated in their own right and the behavior therefore manifested. All we know is that this makes a lot of sense and would make it seem more natural instead of some "disgusting mutation" that many bigots argue it is these days.

  • It Is NOT.

    There are many points that contradict such a theory, such as:

    1. It is not observed in society that homosexuality is less prevalent in areas that would be regarded as under-populated, and neither is it more prevalent in areas of over-population (percentage wise). Such an "evolutionary technique" if true would have risen in areas that need it more ie. Over-populated regions.

    2. Similar to the first point, but if homosexuality was an evolutionary technique to encourage birth control, why would it have been observed in the earliest times of human civilization? Times where land/food/water/women are plentiful (much like today) and a society should be thriving and reproducing as much as possible. And that is to even suggest that homosexuality even STOPS population, which it doesn't (leading to my next point).

    3. Homosexuality isn't even an effective means for avoiding population. Homosexuals can still reproduce just as much as heterosexuals can. Just b/c you find the same gender more attractive doesn't stop you from wanting to procreate. There is no conclusive evidence to show that the brain patterns of homosexuals exhibit behaviours or desires of NOT wanting to procreate and have children. A homosexual can still have sex with an opposite gender and father/mother a child if they so pleased. This spells out 0 effectiveness. A truly effective way of avoiding overpopulation would be birth infertility. If the case was that we were truly overpopulated and evolution saw that and wanted to stop it (not that it even would try and stop it if it could even understand such terms like overpopulation), then you would see rising patterns of birth infertility and sterility among the general population.

  • Homosexuality is not a technique.

    Saying homosexuality is an evolutionary technique to avoid overpopulation is ignorant. Homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it a technique that we do to avoid overpopulation. While homosexuality does avoid overpopulation, it is not done on purpose in order to avoid overpopulation. We do not chose being homosexuals and it is not a technique.

  • Such a technique would be disastrous for a specie.

    First of all if nature, or rather the human race has been at a point where it needed to adapt to avoid overpopulation (highly unlikely as we came from mainland Africa and not an enclosed island) then we would evolve a technique that makes us be born STERILE, rather than homosexual. Homosexuals can still reproduce. If after a certain amount of population density some are born sterile the population goes down. However if the homosexuality technique is used then we have a potential for homosexuals to keep reproducing and passing on their genes down the line, so eventually a large number of species may have that gay gene. If the population goes down suddenly then homosexuality will no longer be an advantage for that population, and most of it will not reproduce or mate. And then that specie goes extinct.

    Also, another scenario. Two species are competing in an environment. One specie has the homosexuality technique and therefore grows more slowly. So then it decreases and decreases in number until it is completely outdone by the other specie, and then goes extinct. Thus if there ever was a specie which adopted homosexuality to protect against overpopulation it wouldn't exist today.

  • Evolution Doesn't Work Like That.

    Here is the scientific point of view. Evolution is a process that occurs at the level of the genes. It is about inheriting genes from the previous generation (your parents). You will inherit the genes that allowed them to survive and reproduce to make you. A behavior that does not encourage survival or procreation is not one that will survive, and therefore it is not subject to the process of evolution. So the answer is no, it's a cute idea but evolution does not work like that.

  • Homosexuality has been around long before overpopulation. Plus members of other (non-overpopulated) species can be homosexuals (like Giraffes).

    People have been gay since our species began, although very recently (and only in certain cultures) is it now O.K. To admit to being gay. Ever since ancient times, people have been gay. Also, many other species in the animal kingdom can be homosexual, without having to be overpopulated. So yeah.

  • But it helps with other things

    A species like humans for example that can think ahead and think "when I'm an old man I want someone to take care of me" or "I want heirs to carry on my proud legacy" may have motivations other than instant gratification to have heterosexual sex, so if he is homosexual then it wouldn't mean he wouldn't reproduce it would mean he would limit heterosexual sex to what he needs to have heirs.

    And then in civilizations with high homosexuality you'd have less unwanted babies cast out as "bastards" (which fortunately we no longer do but kids do still end up in foster care) and growing up as criminals and leading to more death and disease that would have negative effects on the overall reproduction of a population.

    So for a species like ours homosexuality can serve the purpose of making reproduce more planned and avoiding some of the pitfalls of unintended reproduction. We're not rats we can think ahead. People who say it is "unnatural" and that gay people can't reproduce need to stop reasoning about human nature in a manner that excludes those traits most essential to human nature, the traits of planning and reasoning that the fundamentalists revile the most.

  • No, it isn't

    I doubt homosexuality is a technique to avoid overpopulation. I have seen theories that homosexuality helped in populations because gay men, for example, could help the other women with the children, but it also seems unlikely from an evolutionary standpoint. Homosexuality is simply the result of chemical influences in the womb, or possibly genetic influences, it would be hard to be evolutionary considering they don't typically reproduce.

  • It Is Not A Technique

    Homosexuality is not a technique to reduce the population. If I was gay and someone suggested this to me I would be offended. Homosexuality is a sexual preference and that is it. There is no technique to it or have something written between the lines. I doubt most homosexual care about overpopulation.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MasturDbtor says2015-12-28T21:32:58.650
It says I already answered. I don't remember how I answered but anyone proposing this hypothesis has to answer, why not asexuality? Or a tendancy to engage in celibacy in response to population pressures? It's easy to see how abstinence from heterosexual activity could help prevent overpopulation, but how would evolution select in favor of the homosexual attraction and activity instead of just making more asexuals?