Jump to content

Overpopulation vs Sexual Orientation?


WaywardHeroine

Recommended Posts

WaywardHeroine

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to stir up any kind of religious or elitist debate. This is just one of those curious thoughts that popped into my head while I was taking a shower.

Okay, so you how how theres a lot, a lot of people in the world? Well, the population is only going upwards. And what act makes babies? Sex. And who doesn't want to have sex? Us asexuals, that's who. I know there's a lot of asexuals who still want to have kids (myself included), but maybe the emergence of asexuality and homosexuality is like a subconscious response to counteract the effects of overpopulation? It's not an airtight theory, but it's just an interesting "what if" scenario ^_^

I tried to phrase this as objectively as possible. Hopefully I got it right. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think it has to do with overpopulation and living conditions. Humans are intelligent, and we have realized that we are reckless and destructive. I would not be surprised if evolution stepped in and made a certain percent of humans be born as asexual/gay etc. due to improper conditions of family life and the parents health. Certain habits produce certain epigenetics. This is also why it happens in many other social animals.

inb4 ermahgerd nerfin is wrong with muh genetics

Well, have you ever asked yourself what causes an orientation before birth? Sure you can be born with any kind of orientation, but something is causing it to be that way. I do not think it was random.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality and homosexuality aren't new. There's evidence of homosexuality from thousands of years ago. It's harder to find evidence for asexuality because of what it is, but there are signs that some historical figures were asexual. It isn't that there are more asexual and homosexual people than before, it's just that they're finally becoming visible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality and homosexuality aren't new. There's evidence of homosexuality from thousands of years ago. It's harder to find evidence for asexuality because of what it is, but there are signs that some historical figures were asexual. It isn't that there are more asexual and homosexual people than before, it's just that they're finally becoming visible.

Yes, but the only people they can possibly know their sexual orientation of over those thousands of years are the rich and literate (which was not many). Who, in their timed lived in filthy disgusting cities and around people with poor living conditions and health problems. (which would further support the asexuality/gay is caused by living conditions and epigenetics) to help control the population just a tiny bit without massive die offs. And yes, it has been a constant thing, and it seems to revolve around city life. Rural gays and asexuals seem to be much less numerable because the living conditions are much more spacious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree and disagree at the same time. I would agree with the fact that the world is overpopulated and that more and more people are opting out of having children to keep our numbers manageable. However, I disagree that people are becoming homosexual/asexual due to overpopulation. I personally think whether a person is homosexual/asexual/pansexual/etc. is a matter of nature vs. nurture. There have been reports of non human animals engaging in acts of homosexuality and celibacy/asexuality. Some species are endangered that have been know to have done this. (I cannot say for a fact though that they never participated in heterosexual sex to produce offspring.) One thing that I would suggest to help overpopulation is adopt. There are thousands if not millions of children who are in need of a foster family. Plus a lot of people are selfishly (that's how I see it anyway) making their own offspring when a huge amount of kids don't have a stable family to live with. But that is just my opinion. Do with it what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think it has to do with overpopulation and living conditions.

That's not how evolution works. That's been very well explained in many threads before this one, by people who understand it better than I do. Do a search.

Link to post
Share on other sites
verily-forsooth-egads

I personally think it has to do with overpopulation and living conditions. Humans are intelligent, and we have realized that we are reckless and destructive. I would not be surprised if evolution stepped in and made a certain percent of humans be born as asexual/gay etc. due to improper conditions of family life and the parents health. Certain habits produce certain epigenetics. This is also why it happens in many other social animals.

inb4 ermahgerd nerfin is wrong with muh genetics

Well, have you ever asked yourself what causes an orientation before birth? Sure you can be born with any kind of orientation, but something is causing it to be that way. I do not think it was random.

That is…not at all how evolution works, sorry? Nor epigenetics, since you brought it up. I have the vague feeling I'm wasting my words, but here I go explaining it:

Evolution is not predictive. It is not a subconscious response to trends in social conditions. It's the quite simple fact that if you make babies, your genes are now in the gene pool, and if you don't make babies, they're not. That doesn't somehow translate to "if it seems we will eventually need to have fewer babies, evolution will cause us to want fewer babies." You're thinking of God.

Epigenetics is all about tendencies to produce more of certain proteins. Proteins don't make people asexual, and we wouldn't magically "evolve" into a population of queer people in a few generations even if they did. I'm sorry, but your points don't have any relation to actual theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading a study about a population of mice and how mice would increasingly become homosexual as their population increased. I've heard a study was conducted with monkeys with a similar result. I never saw the monkey study though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading a study about a population of mice and how mice would increasingly become homosexual as their population increased. I've heard a study was conducted with monkeys with a similar result. I never saw the monkey study though.

It does happen, but it is caused by stress, not just the ability to sense overpopulation somehow. Too many individuals means less space and less resources. This makes it harder for any one individual to survive. In these stressful conditions that individual is more likely to prioritise its own survival over reproducing because that extra energy usage will probably result in the death of both the individual and the offspring.

This is not a situation a lot of people are facing. I would go so far as to say that at the moment, most people who identify as asexual are not struggling for food.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't think that they are related. Homosexuality and pansexuality has been widely documented since the Roman empire if not before. Asexuality can be taken as a modern terminology for spinsterhood and bachelorhood.

Homosexuality in particular became less prominent as in many societies it was deemed illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality and homosexuality aren't new. There's evidence of homosexuality from thousands of years ago. It's harder to find evidence for asexuality because of what it is, but there are signs that some historical figures were asexual. It isn't that there are more asexual and homosexual people than before, it's just that they're finally becoming visible.

Yes, but the only people they can possibly know their sexual orientation of over those thousands of years are the rich and literate (which was not many). Who, in their timed lived in filthy disgusting cities and around people with poor living conditions and health problems. (which would further support the asexuality/gay is caused by living conditions and epigenetics) to help control the population just a tiny bit without massive die offs. And yes, it has been a constant thing, and it seems to revolve around city life. Rural gays and asexuals seem to be much less numerable because the living conditions are much more spacious.

Actually, the lack of minority's in rural areas is most likely because less people live there in the first place. And the Darwin theory of evolution, the theory that is now seen to be correct, shows that evolution is when a mutation happens that can either be good or bad. The good mutation provides an advantage and so is passed on to the offspring, and the bad mutations will kill the holder before they can breed. It is not possible to evolve in response to a change in environment, what happens is those without the attributes to survive die, and those with them live to make more humans with said attributes.

As much as we want to think we have evolved to save the world from over population, our DNA doesn't know we are over populated, so this idea, while nice, is not backed up by science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While an interesting hypothesis, if it is unfalsifiable then I see not good reason to believe in it.
One might be able to test this hypothesis by looking in variation in non-heterosexuality vs variation in population density. But as population density might be correlated with other things that may cause greater observations of non-heterosexuality (like liberalism or acceptance of non-heterosexuality), one would need to control for other possible explanations.

It does happen, but it is caused by stress, not just the ability to sense overpopulation somehow. Too many individuals means less space and less resources. This makes it harder for any one individual to survive. In these stressful conditions that individual is more likely to prioritise its own survival over reproducing because that extra energy usage will probably result in the death of both the individual and the offspring.

This is not a situation a lot of people are facing. I would go so far as to say that at the moment, most people who identify as asexual are not struggling for food.

Yeah, if anything society might be hyper-heterosexualized due to the abundance of food and resources, which are at much higher levels than what humans have faced for the vast majority of their history. Asexuality might have been a lot more common say 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as we want to think we have evolved to save the world from over population, our DNA doesn't know we are over populated, so this idea, while nice, is not backed up by science.

But the DNA might respond to an increased abundance of pheromones, which may occur due to increased interaction with other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as we want to think we have evolved to save the world from over population, our DNA doesn't know we are over populated, so this idea, while nice, is not backed up by science.

But the DNA might respond to an increased abundance of pheromones, which may occur due to increased interaction with other people.

Still not how evolution works though

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as we want to think we have evolved to save the world from over population, our DNA doesn't know we are over populated, so this idea, while nice, is not backed up by science.

But the DNA might respond to an increased abundance of pheromones, which may occur due to increased interaction with other people.

And then think to itself "gee, seems like there's too many people"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not how evolution works though

During the Pleistocene, it may have been advantageous for tribes of humans to have lower rates of sex as tribe population size increases. One reason for this is that increased population size may have caused more scarcity, which may have favoured individuals that focus more on survival and less on reproduction. As a result, a tribe that has a genetic tendency to reduce sexual activity in the presence of high amounts of human pheromones may have been selected over tribes that do not have this trait.

It's plausible, although I do not see much evidence for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how long evolution takes to affect an entire population?? Thousands of years. Tens of thousands of generations. How long has the earth been overpopulated? A hundred, two hundred years maybe? The only way I'd ever consider anything other than heterosexuality being caused by evolution is if our species went through bottlenecks, which it doesn't, unless you're talking about isolated tribes in the arse end of nowhere, and studies into that doesn't turn up cases of alternative sexualities.

Also, do you know what the chances are of a mutation that's viable for passing on to offspring? An actual phenotypic mutation? The only reason why our species is the way it is, is because (certainly recently anyway) everyone has a chance to mate. There's no survival of the fittest, no selection at work. It's applicable to other species where this still happens, but not at all to humans.

There's no evidence that sexuality has any genetic basis whatsoever. Look up studies on identical twins: genetically identical, same uterus... the only thing that perhaps holds a little bit of weight is epigenetic influence on hormones, but even that's sketchy. You can argue that a lot of twins are brought up in a very very similar environment, and yet you often get one straight, one gay. I don't know what causes it as I'm not an expert on sexuality, but I can tell you it ain't genetics, and it ain't evolution, because I am an expert on those.

Sorry folks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a result, a tribe that has a genetic tendency to reduce sexual activity in the presence of high amounts of human pheromones may have been selected over tribes that do not have this trait.

Selected by whom? You're talking as though there's some cosmic monitor out there who fools around with genetic matter depending on certain environmental situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings up another theory of "smart" evolution. Though this tends to fall into a "grand design" kinda deal so good luck finding a good article on it. But we cannot rule it out. God or not. It has been debated whether or not evolution is a true random, or of it follows a pattern. Also, natural selection isn't random, it's dictated by the environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if our species went through bottlenecks

Humans have gone through like 2 bottlenecks. One was 70,000 years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3340777/Humans-almost-became-extinct-in-70000-BC.html

Selected by whom? You're talking as though there's some cosmic monitor out there who fools around with genetic matter depending on certain environmental situations.

Selected by tribes competing with one another. See Richard Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene' to understand how genes that are beneficial for the tribe overall can be selected for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind. Can't articulate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selected by whom? You're talking as though there's some cosmic monitor out there who fools around with genetic matter depending on certain environmental situations.

Selected by tribes competing with one another. See Richard Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene' to understand how genes that are beneficial for the tribe overall can be selected for.

I read The Selfish Gene 40 years ago, as did everyone back then, and in those 40 years, Dawkins' evolutionary biology theory has been widely criticized. He's no authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading a study about a population of mice and how mice would increasingly become homosexual as their population increased. I've heard a study was conducted with monkeys with a similar result. I never saw the monkey study though.

It does happen, but it is caused by stress, not just the ability to sense overpopulation somehow. Too many individuals means less space and less resources. This makes it harder for any one individual to survive. In these stressful conditions that individual is more likely to prioritise its own survival over reproducing because that extra energy usage will probably result in the death of both the individual and the offspring.

This is not a situation a lot of people are facing. I would go so far as to say that at the moment, most people who identify as asexual are not struggling for food.

In the studies the animals were given food and resources proportionate to their numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selected by whom? You're talking as though there's some cosmic monitor out there who fools around with genetic matter depending on certain environmental situations.

Selected by tribes competing with one another. See Richard Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene' to understand how genes that are beneficial for the tribe overall can be selected for.

I read The Selfish Gene 40 years ago, as did everyone back then, and in those 40 years, Dawkins' evolutionary biology theory has been widely criticized. He's no authority.

Still, he's a lot better when talking biology and evolution then when he dabbles in religion. I still wholeheartedly recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" for everyone to read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality is the result of an allergic reaction that humanity got after itching the earth with too much sex and bawling babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Gingergiggles

I always figured we would serve the same purpose as gay people. Gay uncle theory: We don't breed, so less population, but as childless adults, we act as secondary caretakers to our hetro family members' children. Also we would adopt orphaned family members. Basically a quality over quantity evolutionary strategy. Less offspring but better cared for, more successful offspring.

Buuuut as far as we know, we don't occur at the same rate as gay people. We're supposedly 1% compared to their 10%, which is too low to know for sure if its being selected for. We might just be a hiccup, especially since our experiences very quite a bit. Grey ace and demi and sex positive people would serve a different purpose from the sex repulsed aces. Aromaticism eliminates pair bonding, which (from an evolutionary standpoint but not nessisarily a modern standpoint) is pretty important for being an adoptive parent. Human babies are very high demand and evolution prefers several adults caring for them.

Its hard to say with basically no formal study to go off of.


Asexuality is the result of an allergic reaction that humanity got after itching the earth with too much sex and bawling babies.


Lol, we're anti-bodies.


As a result, a tribe that has a genetic tendency to reduce sexual activity in the presence of high amounts of human pheromones may have been selected over tribes that do not have this trait.
Selected by whom? You're talking as though there's some cosmic monitor out there who fools around with genetic matter depending on certain environmental situations.


Its eugenics. Environmental stimuli can activate and deactivate genes. The right gene(s) being activated by the right stimulus in a beneficial way gives a population an advantage over other groups.

For example, grasshoppers will physically transfom into locus in response to over-population. They go from chill little hoppy plant-eaters into flying, protein-starved cannibals. Population is reduced, so they don't have to compete for resources, cannibalism conserves resources, grasshoppers are a successful species. Its crazy cool.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...