Homosexuality as Population Control?

I’ve always wondered, perhaps homosexuality is mother nature’s way of keeping us humans in check. There are a whole lot of us lately, and maybe nature throws in a curveball every once in a while to make sure we don’t over-infest the earth (although we seem to anyway). I also believe I read somewhere (<- dubious info alert) that in experements with animals in overcrowded conditions showed a higher rate of encounters between animals of the same sex. But, I thought, since homosexuality is pretty old (mentioned in the bible, etc…) it might be something else, because there weren’t as many people then, but perhaps its only local populations and not the whole world, which would make a whole lot more sense. Just a thought, what do you think?

bradysg

Or maybe there are just some guys that like other guys, and just some girls that like other girls…

But that’s a good point to think about. It COULD be a factor in developing homosexuality. I think another factor could be the increased social acceptance, too… fifty years ago, there was a LOT more pressure for gay people to repress their feelings and get a wife. Nowadays, even though there’s still a lot of anti-gayness going around, there’s also a lot more tolerance and acceptiblity.

Actually you have a point> Experiments performed on Rats & mice ( I used mice), show that if the room is limited, but food & water is not, the mice turn to homosexuality, and killing their young. It is “natural”.

This is how I’ve always thought about it, in terms of societal evolution:

Most members of any good self-perpetuating population have the ability to reproduce. In fact, they generally have the ability to produce more offspring than they’re able to care for, since not all of the offspring are going to make it.

After a while, this society becomes advanced to the point that nearly all of the offspring survive. Since everyone still has the same ability and desire to reproduce, it’s then possible to have more kids than the parents can take care of.

So let’s say you’re God, or Nature, or the Free Market, or whatever invisible hand is guiding this process. You need to reduce the total capacity of the population to reproduce, so you can 1.)reduce everyone’s capacity, or 2.)eliminate the capacity of a portion of the population. #2 works better, since it would be a little easier to tweak and because you’d have a group set aside to take care of the overflow.

The best way to do this? Just have a portion of the population be attracted to members of their own sex. They can get it on at will, yet produce no offspring, and can thus care for the excess offspring of the breeder population. They’re happy, the overworked parents are happy, the under-cared-for kids are happy, everyone’s happy. (Except Dr. Laura.)

This is what I say to all those who call homosexuality a violation of God’s natural order–you’re not giving God very much credit.

Dr. J

Daniel…I am familiar with the studies on rats you are speaking…the one thing that I would add to that (as sort of a cautionary note) as that those experiments took place under contrived circumstances with specially bred rats…as such the generalizability of those studies to humans (or even other rats) is quite limited. They are interesting studies, but I hazard to say that they mean much vis a vis human behaviour of any kind. They are an interesting clue, but hardly warrant the “It is natural” conclusion. to overcrowding.

Avalon: Under contrived circumstances, yes, but I used regular-old-buy-at-the-pet-store mice. The experiment has been performed countless times, with similar results. There is no doubt many “lower” mammals react this way. It could be a stretch to imput this to intelligent animals such as humans. I believe, myself, that the experiment has SOME validity with humans, as witness our over-crowded cities. One could argue that it has no validity when applied to Humans, true. But the experiment, as applied to many species (including cats, and several others), has experimental validity. So we can say these behaviours are “natural”, but not nessesarily with intelligent species. For some reason they won’t let you USE humans… :smiley:

Daniel: I know, isn’t the inability to use human subjects for these sorts of experiments a pain?

so its simple then… go out kidnap some people and put them in a cage

No, no, Asmodean, it’s a societal problem… what we need are laws in overpopulated areas prohibiting heterosexuality.

Lesse, in overcrowded situations, the rats engaged in homosexual activity and killed their young?

That’s it! All new born baby boys, toss 'em into the Nile.

How 'bout this:
Homosexuality is just another genetic condition, much like hemophilia and having brown hair. Thing is, it has been so demonized in the Mideast-European scheme of things that the gays have always been forced into the closet. That has kept reported numbers nil until a society emerged that didn’t kill them on sight. The USA is just such a society. The Roman Empire was another.
On why it happens in populated regions: A mix of the above statement, probability, and migrations. Populated regions have a more heterogenous population base simply because of chance/migrations. If you have 1 million people in a region, and the statistical prevelence of having a certain trait is 1/1000, you’ll have 1000 people in that region with that trait just on chance. If people outside that city are persecuted for having that trait, they’ll move to where they’re not persecuted, increasing the incidence of that trait in the populous region. If having that trait gives a survival advantage to the group an organisim’s in, so much the better. Incidence will rise.

Why kidnap people when you have people willing to volunteer? I, for one, wouldn’t mind living in a cage with food and drink… hell, if I get to ditch school and work for it, I think it’d be a hoot (as long as others put into the cage aren’t ugly and stinky).

What makes you think that a gay person doesn’t have the drive to reproduce? Gay people have children all the time, and not just when they’re closeted. Look no further than Melissa Ethridge.

Just my 2¢, but although there is evidence that homosexual activity increases with higher population density, and “transient” homosexuality is evident where there are no females, homosexuality is also found in small population centers as well. Logically if Ma Nature only used homosexuality as population control it would only appear when the density got too high, but not when the population is too low.

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

This wouldn’t affect the actual existence of homosexuality, just the observable behavior of homosexuals. Functionally a gay person can have sex with someone of the opposite gender, but that doesn’t make them any less gay.

Derleth wrote:

This is societal influence, and has little to do with natural selection (as described in the OP). I doubt gay rats move to where there’s a better disco.

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

But the point is you’d start having gay sex. Then they wouldn’t look so ugly and stinky, then, would they? :wink:

Esprix

Living in a cage, without a shower? ANYone’d start looking ugly and stinky (except Martha Stewart).

If you want humans in cages, check out the penal system, lots of stats there.

As far as the free world…who cares? As long as you’re not a scum-sucking pedophile and your sexual preferences include two (or more) willing adults, knock yourself out.

Live and let live, that’s my motto.

Just to return to the OP, the answer has to be NO.

The basic problem is simple: evolution does not work on the basis of what is good for the species.

picmr

Natural selection is the driving force in evolution, and it does work for what’s in the best interest of the species, simply because bad adaptations die out.