Jump to content

Asexuality? Idea


QuantumEcho

Recommended Posts

QuantumEcho

So this popped into my head for no apparent reason just thought it was interesting to share. The likelyhood of this happening is slim to none so. Since we are overpopulated on earth, could it be a fact that some changes are happening in humans. That the desire to have sex is diminished in certain people by biology?  etc. just thinking out loud discusss!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind. Blown. ... Just kidding, though it is entirely possible as we know that humans are constantly evolving and changing and there are things that we don't even know as of yet about our biology and why certain changes emerge and so on. I think it's an interesting idea and could definitely have merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I need to question everything I know now... though I'm not sure if it's actually, the case it is interesting to think about!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this proposed before. It is an interesting idea. As for me, I have my own theory. I was abandoned after birth and spent my first six months in an orphanage. I was kept clean and fed but this was the only interaction I had with other people. I spent most of the time on my back, sleeping and staring at the ceiling. The flat spot at the back of my head is testament to that. I was eventually adopted by American parents and well cared for. However a window of opportunity might have closed. Sex to me seems a regression to infancy and all the intimate pleasure we shared with our mother. I never experienced this so I never had an urge to experience it again. Maybe this and the original proposal as well. I've always felt I was born 200 years too soon. Perhaps I really belong in a time when a small percentage of the population breeds because we have reached the planet's carrying capacity. A substantial number of non-breeders are people like me, without flat spots of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
QuantumEcho

@Yeast I was loved by my parents etc. I was never denied affection but i have little to no sexual desire I find it not useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AstroCookie said:

Yeast I was loved by my parents etc. I was never denied affection but i have little to no sexual desire I find it not useful.

This is probably true for most asexuals. I think the fact my mother may have been asexual as well might have further influenced my development. I can't remember her ever sleeping with my father but then again he was a traveling sales technician so was seldom home. Can it all be nature vs nurture? Most asexuals are the natural kind. I may be the unnatural sort. Whatever. It really doesn't bother me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QuantumEcho
Just now, Yeast said:

This is probably true for most asexuals. I think the fact my mother may have been asexual as well might have further influenced my development. I can't remember her ever sleeping with my father but then again he was a traveling sales technician so was seldom home. Can it all be nature vs nurture? Most asexuals are the natural kind. I may be the unnatural sort. Whatever. It really doesn't bother me.

my mother was a horn dog so was my father. My brothers are the same way but why did i come out different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest -NULL-

Hello @AstroCookie ,

 

This has been the hypothesis about the presence of LGBT+ individuals, in terms of genetic expression, for a while now. I also was wondering about the same thing when I first discovered the term asexuality. The current hypothesis is that individuals are  exhibiting traits that would make them less likely to produce offspring because humans have already reached (or far surpasses) the Earth's ecosystem capacity for our species.

 

I am glad that we both though of the same thing! I will try to find the research articles that I read that support this.

 

Best regards,

Ace Ninja :cake:

b924b63dc117c4aff3e5cb060b4cc8c92a8ce2f0_hq.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
QuantumEcho
55 minutes ago, CBC said:

You mean like, some external force is influencing the biology of certain humans to make them more disinclined towards sex because there are lots of people on the planet? Doubtful. I see no logical reason this would be true. We just live in a time with more people and more openness about sexuality; there's no evidence that there's a higher percentage of asexual people. They just would've identified differently in the past due to cultural norms.

Not some external force exactly but it was just an idea.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AstroCookie said:

my mother was a horn dog so was my father. My brothers are the same way but why did i come out different?

Welcome to the 24th century! (Beam me up Scotty ...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest -NULL-
22 hours ago, CBC said:

You mean like, some external force is influencing the biology of certain humans to make them more disinclined towards sex because there are lots of people on the planet? Doubtful. I see no logical reason this would be true. We just live in a time with more people and more openness about sexuality; there's no evidence that there's a higher percentage of asexual people. They just would've identified differently in the past due to cultural norms.

Hey @CBC ,

 

Here is an interesting article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-roger-denson/is-homosexuality-populati_b_784449.html . The same idea might apply to asexuality in the sense that it is a genetically heritable trait that appears when a species is beginning to reach the threshold of its ecosystem capacity. (This is an interesting idea to confirm empirically-- I don't think this research has been proven or denied by investigation.)

 

This article is not the most credible, but it is relevant.

 

Keep acing it,

Ace Ninja :cake:

b924b63dc117c4aff3e5cb060b4cc8c92a8ce2f0_hq.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the OP, I highly doubt it. Looking at instances where populations of animals (including, but not limited to, humans) - there have been plenty of cases where the population grows to outstrip resources. Then the excess succumbs to things like starvation. There is no mechanism I know of that naturally limits populations sizes so as not to outstrip resources. In fact, the whole history of life on earth has been about producing as much offspring as possible (because many will be eaten, die of disease, etc.). 

 

I think asexuality (as well as homosexuality, etc., and even heterosexuality that doesn't result in offspring) exists as part of natural variation. Another thing to look at is non-human animals where it's been shown that some percentage of them do not mate and produce offspring. Are those species in danger of over-population? I don't think so.

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

I was wondering whether it had something to do with evolving as well, or even spirituality. Someone I was talking to mentioned spirituality and how buddhist monks are asexual. I mentioned the possibility that they may just be celibate but he believes they're asexual. I guess we'll never know unless we ask them individually, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are asexual. Plus, maybe it's both, like some sort of mind evolvement ahah 

*strokes beard* 

Like with buddhism right, there's the concept of reincarnation. So perhaps asexuals were previously so spiritually enlightened in their past life (to the point where they no longer had such desires) and then as a result, this has carried forward into their next life, explaining why they're asexual. Kind of like how karma works? You pay for the sins you committed in your past and current life... in your current (or future) life 

But I dno! Just thought I'd share some random ideas of my own

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd better get your tinfoil hat out pal cause I've got some thoughts on that matter. 

 

The oh so wonderful Henry Kissinger once made a few statements in regards to human depopulation. At one point in time his words held a lot of sway. And today here we are. In the coming years we'll be facing an overpopulation problem. We already actually live in it. But it'll be worse in the future. I'm not gonna say there's a deliberate plan and a button out there labeled "make more asexuals." But looking at things from the logistics viewpoint of a large scale organization who was concerned with managing people, it would be a massive benefit if a portion of the human population suddenly had little incentive to reproduce. It would curb the growth rate we're currently projected at. And go figure, asexuals are on the rise. Now, is it a question of there simply being more people coming out with such tendencies, or is there an actual increase in developing cases? I don't think there's enough information yet.

 

But let's take a look at all the things that've been happening in the world in the past couple decades. We've got ourselves a disease that shows up out of the blue that just so happens to make the jump from primates to humans that explicitly targets fluid exchanges and is passed on to any child with a parent who hosts it, making sex with these individuals a no-no. We've got so many chemicals in products being sold to us lately that they're just now happening to "find" that cause cancers, screw with your immune system, lower sperm count, and demolish many other functions of the body.

 

Truthfully, I think a lot of it is actually random chance. But I don't give random chance all the credit. When you start reading through the published documents of what our governments have done in the past in regards to preemptive moves you start to notice that there is some incredible calculating and engineering done that worked. And many times through history, organizations and governments already knew everything about the product they were pushing or using, but they tactfully neglected to inform anybody or took countermeasures to seed doubt in the population. And there is absolutely no chance that any of that has suddenly stopped. And let's talk about sexuality and psychology. It's a moldable thing. When all the set circumstances are met in childhood, a person's brain will wire itself. Figure out the circumstances, and you have an engineering blueprint for preemptively molding a person's sexuality before they're born. I smell fish somewhere.

 

But to your original point and evolution. I thought about it, and I think to a degree, homosexuality and asexuality could be natural mechanisms to help curb population. Then again we always like to think of evolution as having this objective in mind when it really doesn't. History is littered with the failures of evolution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You forgot chemtrails.

Ah yes how could I forget those. Setting aside conspiracy theory notions for a second, mind if I ask why you'd sound doubtful? I understand the asexuality bit. There's no supporting evidence for it at all. Just casual notions and loose ideas of mine that don't amount to much. But you certainly can't deny that the majority of the world's leading governments are, at best, shady as hell. There's a lot of things they don't tell the public. Probably for warranted reasons as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CBC said:

Are they? I imagine a very small percentage of the population has always been asexual. And now that those folks have a particular term for their sexuality -- which is fine -- a lot of other people who experience little to no interest in sex for a plethora of other reasons have latched onto it as well. Due to the current cultural trend towards acceptance of diversity (which is overall a really good thing!), and unquestioningly taking people at their word, these individuals are encouraged to look no further into whatever is going on with them once they adopt the label of asexuality. As a result, way more people identify as asexual. That's all we know for sure. There's no evidence one way or the other that more people are asexual.

Harkons to what I said. Simply not enough data at the present time to confirm anything about whether or not it's an actual rise in number or just the cause and effect of increased exposure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 hour ago, E is for E said:

We've got ourselves a disease that shows up out of the blue that just so happens to make the jump from primates to humans that explicitly targets fluid exchanges and is passed on to any child with a parent who hosts it, making sex with these individuals a no-no.

Diseases do these things all the time. The theory that HIV (I assume that's what you're talking about) was a CIA experiment gone wrong seems to be a USSR-originated hoax.

1 hour ago, E is for E said:

Now, is it a question of there simply being more people coming out with such tendencies, or is there an actual increase in developing cases? I don't think there's enough information yet.

Yet you go on to base an international intergovernmental conspiracy on the assumption that there are more cases.

 

1 hour ago, E is for E said:

We've got so many chemicals in products being sold to us lately that they're just now happening to "find" that cause cancers, screw with your immune system, lower sperm count, and demolish many other functions of the body.

No, they're finding out what those chemicals do. Everyone knew they were there, since they were part of the manufacturing process.

 

But beyond all that, you're making a huge unsupported leap of logic: governments do things they don't tell everyone about, therefore there's an international conspiracy to increase the number of asexuals. No idea about how, the number of people involved, how it's miraculously being kept secret. Just for a start.

 

The rest of your 'argument' is that 'we don't know it isn't' which is just about the weakest form of argument possible. You're making the claims, you need to provide the evidence; that's how these things work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Diseases do these things all the time. The theory that HIV (I assume that's what you're talking about) was a CIA experiment gone wrong seems to be a USSR-originated hoax.

Yet you go on to base an international intergovernmental conspiracy on the assumption that there are more cases.

 

No, they're finding out what those chemicals do. Everyone knew they were there, since they were part of the manufacturing process.

 

But beyond all that, you're making a huge unsupported leap of logic: governments do things they don't tell everyone about, therefore there's an international conspiracy to increase the number of asexuals. No idea about how, the number of people involved, how it's miraculously being kept secret. Just for a start.

 

The rest of your 'argument' is that 'we don't know it isn't' which is just about the weakest form of argument possible. You're making the claims, you need to provide the evidence; that's how these things work.

Of course, like I said, it's just a notion of mine. I've no evidence for it, if there even is any at all. It's just pondering and loose speculation. Looking at the future we're going to be dealing with, it would be a very convenient thing if the asexual population started to rise. I just don't put much faith in governments to do the right thing. Actually, thinking about that, it's less governments and more companies that tend to do these things. And of course I know that random chance is always a legitimate factor in all of this. Like you said with diseases, these things do happen on their own. I know the folly of human pattern recognition. We can recognize patterns that aren't there. And that's likely all my ponderings amount to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...