Homosexuality and Population Growth?

[BoredShirtless]

Well, people who have no reason to be alive are being kept alive by drugs, blahblahblah, you've heard it all before, not only are they being kept alive, but they are procreating and passing on unfavorable traits (Hereditary predisposition for cancer, Eg.) that may not manifest itself for two or three generations, which when combined with another who has unfavorable traits, you get the picture. More And more of these unfavorable traits are being introduced and allowed to remain in the gene pool, which MAY be (speculation here) why you see the cancer and other genetic disorder numbers going up up up. But that's certainly just a thought.

Uh huh, now I get ya.

Now, my paranoia is kicking in and it is telling me that your were perhaps thinking that i was some kind of Aryan Troll clone thinking that anything other than the race I am (Be that white, asian, black, etc.) would constitute genetic impurity. If this is not the case, I certainly do apologize, but that's the paranoid vibe i'm getting....

No need to apologise, it just wasn't clear is all.

[InnerBrat]

I'm really not going into my "fitness is determined by selection" rant again. Unless you force me to. Gene pools do not deteriorate, as 'badness' is determined by the environment.

Eugenics is bad, people!

[Lagmonster]

Eugenics is bad, people!

No argument. But let's work this issue through, what? If population levels are too high (say for food supplies and living space), and natural means are ineffective at balancing population levels because of technology(normally disease and our own combatitive natures rise up when population density increases, right?), then what is the answer?

I referred to my 'program' of choice because I couldn't think of a better idea for a desperate population, but there might well be one (for the record, I don't believe for a nanosecond that our population levels can get so high that disease can't rise to the challenge, but there you go).

[Chardok]

Eugenics is bad, people!

No argument. But let's work this issue through, what? If population levels are too high (say for food supplies and living space), and natural means are ineffective at balancing population levels because of technology(normally disease and our own combatitive natures rise up when population density increases, right?), then what is the answer?

I referred to my 'program' of choice because I couldn't think of a better idea for a desperate population, but there might well be one (for the record, I don't believe for a nanosecond that our population levels can get so high that disease can't rise to the challenge, but there you go).

Here is another thought, we live on a precarious...umm....precarious....what is word? Me am not know...anyway. certainly the united states is capable, (Food-wise) of supporting itself, but without modern advances in agriculture, GM foods and whatnot, say if there was some kind of ecological disaster in the US...how many people would die? I think that, given a breakdown of modern farming techniques, there would be an unprecedented loss of life worldwide! I mean, think about how EASY it would be for something to cause a sharp decrease in food production, How many people would DIE?! Millions! Then when we recovered from said ecological disaster, we'd have LOTS of food left over and every person on the planet would get pizza every day!!! (Okay, the last part was a joke, but seriously, what a precarious perch we all live on, eh? I mean, look how badly a little blackout crippled us! and I'm not saying that i'm mr. tough guy and a blackout means nothing to me. If I lost power for two days or somesuch, I would go out of my mind...I'm a product of the 80's! GIVE ME CLIMATE CONTROL, OR GIVE ME DEATH!)

[Straha]

Eugenics is bad, people!

No argument. But let's work this issue through, what? If population levels are too high (say for food supplies and living space), and natural means are ineffective at balancing population levels because of technology(normally disease and our own combatitive natures rise up when population density increases, right?), then what is the answer?

I referred to my 'program' of choice because I couldn't think of a better idea for a desperate population, but there might well be one (for the record, I don't believe for a nanosecond that our population levels can get so high that disease can't rise to the challenge, but there you go).

Here is another thought, we live on a precarious...umm....precarious....what is word? Me am not know...anyway. certainly the united states is capable, (Food-wise) of supporting itself, but without modern advances in agriculture, GM foods and whatnot, say if there was some kind of ecological disaster in the US...how many people would die? I think that, given a breakdown of modern farming techniques, there would be an unprecedented loss of life worldwide! I mean, think about how EASY it would be for something to cause a sharp decrease in food production, How many people would DIE?! Millions! Then when we recovered from said ecological disaster, we'd have LOTS of food left over and every person on the planet would get pizza every day!!!

You're funny, you obviously have no clue about what you're talking about when it comes to population control and food supply. NOt only do we have a surplus of food, but we have the ability to feed a five person family with land the size of a standard bedroom using hydroponics, then if we fit in genetically modified produce into the picture we could have the potential to feed the whole nation with fractions of the current size of the US's farmland, and the best part of it? As long as you have water you're set, sun or no sun, as long as you have a greenhouse like area keeping it, and the water to feed them (which we have an unlimited amount of) the nation will never go hungry.

Read a book Called the "Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon, I believe it's free on the web, it has multiple chapters based on just these things.

[NapoleonGH]

straha, you need 1 thing more than water, you need energy to produce light for photosynthesis too

[Chardok]

I wasn't Talking about JUST the US, I was referring to how much OTHER countries depend on the US for food exports....namely third world countries. And anyway, I don't see an industry-wide shift to hydroponics happenning anytime soon, do you? I also stated that certainly the US is self sufficient. if the us was rendered, by ecological or man made disaster unable to export as much food as we do, how many millions would die? Would venezuela pick up our slack? I think not. Brazil? /laugh.

[Tom_Aurum]

I'm sticking by my theory for the moment, it seems a whole lot more useful than anyone's political solutions. Altho I did not know that our world population is decreasing, it sure is useful data, as our society is turning slowly into a painfully more conservative one again, and I could see the link. One of you brought up the historical example of greece as a possible area where high population and homosexuality went hand in hand. Anyone else have any historical examples of societies that had large amounts of homosexuals in them? Also, while we're at it... let's see if we can draw a cross-line here with liberal and/or tolerant societies.

[Straha]

straha, you need 1 thing more than water, you need energy to produce light for photosynthesis too

True, though sunlight and mirrors are good too.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm really not going into my "fitness is determined by selection" rant again. Unless you force me to. Gene pools do not deteriorate, as 'badness' is determined by the environment.

Eugenics is bad, people!

I suppose the increase in developmental, genetic, and learning diseases and disorders is pure coincidence?

[Chardok]

*OPINION* ^^^^^is the result of dilution of the gene pool. I don't go in for that environment determines ________. Bullshit.
But I suppose before I go on, I should ask you to describe "Badness" I'm thinking along the lines of behavioral, perhaps you speak of genetic imperfections?

[InnerBrat]

*OPINION* ^^^^^is the result of dilution of the gene pool. I don't go in for that environment determines ________. Bullshit.
But I suppose before I go on, I should ask you to describe "Badness" I'm thinking along the lines of behavioral, perhaps you speak of genetic imperfections?

Anything that people think they can weed out thorugh selective breeding is genetic.
I hate the term 'bad' in reference to genes, because it implies that you can judge a gene based on one of its effects.
Most behaviors are not genetic, so you can't remove them by breeding, but by working on their cause - society.
The word 'dilution' that you used implies increased variety in the gene pool, which in turn equips us with the ability to survive unpredictable disasters, not the other way round.

I suppose the increase in developmental, genetic, and learning diseases and disorders is pure coincidence?

You define the term 'disorder' and 'disease' subjectively. As far as the gene pool is concerned, if someone with dyslexia (the increase in diagnosis of which is certainly in part linked to its increased recognition in the educational sciences) can have and raise children, then that gene is not a 'bad gene'

[Darth Wong]

I'm really not going into my "fitness is determined by selection" rant again. Unless you force me to. Gene pools do not deteriorate, as 'badness' is determined by the environment.

Nevertheless, a species which requires artificial supports in order to function can be considered "weak". A human being who is born without the ability to walk can use a wheelchair to function anyway. Does this mean that he is not disabled or weaker in any way? If everyone slowly lost the ability to walk, would you not consider this a deterioration of the gene pool?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Nevertheless, a species which requires artificial supports in order to function can be considered "weak". A human being who is born without the ability to walk can use a wheelchair to function anyway. Does this mean that he is not disabled or weaker in any way? If everyone slowly lost the ability to walk, would you not consider this a deterioration of the gene pool?

It's obvious that any rational species cannot allow itself to be chained to a natural process, rendering, I think, the question irrelevant (well, in terms of the practical application)--if we are heading in that direction than we must simply use our science to reverse it. We created technology to free ourselves from nature and there's no reason not to carry that to the full conclusion.

I believe, however, that Debi is arguing that diversity = genetic strength. She is correct in terms of absolute numbers, were those numbers equal; but the direct propagation of clear genetic weaknesses in the human gene pool can only be defended on moral grounds--if quite admirably by those moral grounds. Strength in diversity presumes that one is not propagating clear weaknesses: And though, obviously, the idea of particular races having those weaknesses has been long disproven; we also know that genetic disorders exist which are being now more definitely propagated.

These, however, can be corrected before they become severe, I would submit, and not in any fashion that is morally distasteful.

[InnerBrat]

Nevertheless, a species which requires artificial supports in order to function can be considered "weak". A human being who is born without the ability to walk can use a wheelchair to function anyway. Does this mean that he is not disabled or weaker in any way? If everyone slowly lost the ability to walk, would you not consider this a deterioration of the gene pool?

1) There is no advantage to not being able to walk, so being able to walk is not going to be selected against.
2) If you can live and procreate happily without the ability to walk, then why does it matter that you can't?
3) The only way we're all going to lose the ability to walk if either through genetic drift or if not being able to walk becomes a hinderance.
4) If the latter situation occurs, however unlikely it is, then it would be better to have as many people who can't walk in the population as possible to maintain genetic diversity and avoid a bottle neck.
5) Why is it considered 'weak' to rely on an environmental condition? Many birds, hymenoptera and other animals can't survive without their own artifiical constructs. Hermit crabs require a discarded shell to survive, millions of species - indlucing the most successful mammal species alive - require human made environments to survive. Are these species 'weak', and if so, what objective comparison are you using to define what makes a species 'weak'?

[Lagmonster]

Why is it considered 'weak' to rely on an environmental condition? Many birds, hymenoptera and other animals can't survive without their own artifiical constructs. Hermit crabs require a discarded shell to survive, millions of species - indlucing the most successful mammal species alive - require human made environments to survive. Are these species 'weak', and if so, what objective comparison are you using to define what makes a species 'weak'?

Weakness or strength in a species is largely its ability to survive. Thus, I would argue that no species is truly weak so long as the environment doesn't change drastically - each creature has abilities and weaknesses that make them suited to the environment they inhabit. Humans may not be independantly able to survive to grow to maturity - a weakness, but we have instinctively attentive mothers and family groups, and the intelligence to manipulate our environment - a strength that balances us out.

Now...let's say that the population was declining WITHOUT a change in the environment - no new predators, no change in food availability, weather, etc. Suddenly, you have a weak species. I can't think of any events like this - suitability to survive in a stable environment is up to the individual organism and whether it was any little bit stronger or weaker in comparaison to its community members, not the species as a whole.

As for those who require human made environments to survive...I want to ask you about that. What are you thinking of? Cats and dogs?

[InnerBrat]

Weakness or strength in a species is largely its ability to survive.

-- snip for emphasis --

Now...let's say that the population was declining WITHOUT a change in the environment - no new predators, no change in food availability, weather, etc. Suddenly, you have a weak species.

but, a species that is unable to survive won't.
Any species that survives is not weak.

Which is kind of my point

(is that QED - bloody modern schooling, I never took Latin)

As for those who require human made environments to survive...I want to ask you about that. What are you thinking of? Cats and dogs?

and cows and chickens and bananas and wheat and horses and rats and...

[Lagmonster]

But, a species that is unable to survive won't.
Any species that survives is not weak.

We basically agree - no species is weak unless it is dying off without a change in its environment. Which is why I said that survivability is individual, not species-wide, until something happens, like a new predator, environmental change, or other pressure.

(things that can't live without us) and cows and chickens and bananas and wheat and horses and rats and...

Pause...wheat? And I would doubt horses need us. There are still wild chickens in Asia...and dogs and cats, believe the Humane Society, would do just fine if all human cities evaporated tomorrow. My grandmother's farmland in Newcastle, Ontario, sees a lot of wild cats of the Fluffy and Sylvester variety. I don't doubt that you're on the right track, mind.

When you point at domesticated cows and chickens and pigs, you are DEFINATELY pointing at something that would get wiped out in a week without us, but by my reckoning, those aren't things that evolved and adapted to live in human environments on their own in the interest of their own success as a species! I guess they count, but they're poor examples since they were designed to require artificial support.

Now, rats are an interesting case, which do MUCH better in human environments, but even that is merely because we have given them a place to thrive beyond what they normally would on their own. I don't believe for a moment that they would go extinct if we all evaporated overnight.

[InnerBrat]

I didn't really inted to go through each exampple one by one, as my brain's not working recently (as I'm sure you've all noticed) so I reeled off a bunch, but...

Pause...wheat?

Is nearly all produced artificially nowadays. The majority of wheat plants are heterozygous and contain some rather dangerous genes. It's a whole Evil-Corporation-screwing -the-poror farmer thing. Many commercial famrers need to buy a new seed crop each year.

And I would doubt horses need us.

OK, mustangs do fine, I guess, point conceded.

There are still wild chickens in Asia...

not of the same species as the domestic chicken

and dogs and cats, believe the Humane Society, would do just fine if all human cities evaporated tomorrow. My grandmother's farmland in Newcastle, Ontario, sees a lot of wild cats of the Fluffy and Sylvester variety.

But those wild cats are still living off human debris - they're hunting commensals, they're protected by 'aw ain't they cute'-ness that keeps all competitors at bay etc etc

When you point at domesticated cows and chickens and pigs, you are DEFINATELY pointing at something that would get wiped out in a week without us,

Useless fact - of the major domesticated mammals, pigs Sus scrofa are the only group that is taxonomically the same species as the wild ancestral stock. Go pigs.

but by my reckoning, those aren't things that evolved and adapted to live in human environments on their own in the interest of their own success as a species! I guess they count, but they're poor examples since they were designed to require artificial support.

No, now you're creating an artificial barrier between artificial and natural selection. Selection is selection is selection. Bos taurus is a massively successful species, and it doesn't matter if the enivronment that shaped it heavily factored another species (us), because they've exploited us for their own evolutionary gain as much as we've exploited them for a hamburger.

Now, rats are an interesting case, which do MUCH better in human environments, but even that is merely because we have given them a place to thrive beyond what they normally would on their own. I don't believe for a moment that they would go extinct if we all evaporated overnight.

No, rats were a poor example, but I meant commensals in general. I'm o expert on the taxonomy of commensal rodentia, but I'd bet my Manhattan heels that there are species of rat and/or mouse that rely completely on human enivronments (tube mice, anyone?)

[Straha]

I wasn't Talking about JUST the US, I was referring to how much OTHER countries depend on the US for food exports....namely third world countries.

And if the U.S can pump out enough food to feed the entire world this changes what I said how?

And anyway, I don't see an industry-wide shift to hydroponics happenning anytime soon, do you?

Well, yes and no. Yes in that companies are switching to hydroponic growth and it is coming along, no in that as long as we give outrageous subsidies to Farmers there isn't going to be anypush that way by them to hydroponics, and infact there will probably be a big push against it launched by these people.

I also stated that certainly the US is self sufficient. if the us was rendered, by ecological or man made disaster unable to export as much food as we do, how many millions would die? Would venezuela pick up our slack? I think not. Brazil? /laugh.

How about Europe? Asia? or even ::gasp:: their own food stores to prevent starvation untill a larger crop can be planted overseas, or at home to help provide food, or even just until the U.S. can export again.

[Lagmonster]

I didn't really inted to go through each exampple one by one, as my brain's not working recently (as I'm sure you've all noticed) so I reeled off a bunch, but...

No rush to trouble. I'm a nice lagmonster, really.

(wheat) Is nearly all produced artificially nowadays. The majority of wheat plants are heterozygous and contain some rather dangerous genes. It's a whole Evil-Corporation-screwing -the-poror farmer thing. Many commercial famrers need to buy a new seed crop each year.

To be honest, I will have to take your word for it. My father was the farmer, not me. Nonetheless, I know you probably know what you're talking about and I don't have any reason to doubt it.

At that, I was being verbally berated by my wife when I called her to ask, because I of all people should have known better: Of course there is the high-yield and genetically resistant seed for sale as opposed to the grass-variety! Still, I don't agree with labelling wheat in general as something that is dependant on humans for its continued existance! I know that wheat has been cultivated by humans over a very long time, but it can be grown in a field on the whims of nature (there are, I believe, painfully hippy 'organic farmers' who do this, though what they produce is often little better than grass).

Tell you what: Let me come back to this. When I go in I will check the CFIA and AgCan net for links to sites that will help (there's a cereals website somewhere in there), and see what I can learn.

(There are still wild chickens in Asia...)not of the same species as the domestic chicken

Gallus Domesticus probably originated from one of several jungle fowl in Southeast Asia...and I'm at least 50% sure that it still runs wild there. Since I don't have confirmation in front of me, I'll leave it alone rather than press it without a clue.

But those wild cats are still living off human debris - they're hunting commensals, they're protected by 'aw ain't they cute'-ness that keeps all competitors at bay etc etc

You're good. Within cities, you're right - strays are almost always former pets or runaways. Nonetheless, when you get out into the country, there are families of common house cats who have endured for generations out on their own. And what protects them from the farmers is primarily the fact that they prey on the things that prey on the crop. I understand, after looking at it, that you're right about being intertwined with humans, but do you believe that they would qualify as surviving on an artificial system? They certainly thrive on it, and they reap its benefits, but would they become so much worm food if, say, all the farmers up and left?

No, now you're creating an artificial barrier between artificial and natural selection. Selection is selection is selection. Bos taurus is a massively successful species, and it doesn't matter if the enivronment that shaped it heavily factored another species (us), because they've exploited us for their own evolutionary gain as much as we've exploited them for a hamburger.

You're right that they need us, however they got there. Although we could start a whole new thread arguing over whether they're a successful species. I suppose I was looking for a stronger argument in the form of some organism that wasn't already an artificial thing itself, but that's silly.

No, rats were a poor example, but I meant commensals in general. I'm no expert on the taxonomy of commensal rodentia, but I'd bet my Manhattan heels that there are species of rat and/or mouse that rely completely on human enivronments (tube mice, anyone?)

Not a clue, so we'll call it dead even and go for a beer.

[Chardok]

I wasn't Talking about JUST the US, I was referring to how much OTHER countries depend on the US for food exports....namely third world countries.

And if the U.S can pump out enough food to feed the entire world this changes what I said how?

And anyway, I don't see an industry-wide shift to hydroponics happenning anytime soon, do you?

Well, yes and no. Yes in that companies are switching to hydroponic growth and it is coming along, no in that as long as we give outrageous subsidies to Farmers there isn't going to be anypush that way by them to hydroponics, and infact there will probably be a big push against it launched by these people.

I also stated that certainly the US is self sufficient. if the us was rendered, by ecological or man made disaster unable to export as much food as we do, how many millions would die? Would venezuela pick up our slack? I think not. Brazil? /laugh.

How about Europe? Asia? or even ::gasp:: their own food stores to prevent starvation untill a larger crop can be planted overseas, or at home to help provide food, or even just until the U.S. can export again.

Don't know how to separate quotes, sorry....
What I meant was, that if the U.S were only capable of supporting itself and not able to export anymore, and were forced to become self sufficient until the ecosystem stabilized, what then?

And the fact remains that we ARE giving outrageous subsidies to farmers and that is not likely to change...so hydroponics as a significant source of agricultural wealth remain a minor consideration... But you are definately correct, hydroponics ARE the way to go....WAY less space and much more efficient! Agriculturalists of ellicit natures have known this for years, and have produce EXTREMELY HIGH quality crops using this method. Very HIGH high quality stuff....what were we talking about? Ugh...short term....

[BoredShirtless]

Seperating quotes example. Text before seperation:

[quuote]
blah blah
blah blah
[/quuote]

After seperating the two lines:

[quuote]
blah blah
[/quuote]

[quuote]
blah blah
[/quuote]

[Aeolus]

This is where we get into the shit: What is a healthy population level? Who has the right to breed, to live, to have their life sustained artificially?

Innerbrat mentioned (semi-seriously, I expect) that it's 'better' to cull the aged rather than discourage breeding. Funny thing is, I would lean towards the latter - simply put, I figure it's a hell of a lot better to trample on people's freedoms and rights but let them live otherwise full, comfortable, and healthy lives, than to tell them when it's time to die.

Debate this: Let's say a totalitarian, yet somewhat caring government had to deal with unsafe population levels. They implement a program: When you become an adult (21 years old), you sign up for one of two lists. You can choose either to be rendered sterile and live a long life in total medical and other support, or have the right to have as many kids as you want (assuming you can find a partner - they aren't handed out, here!) and be executed at the age of 60. Which list do YOU sign up for? I can't think of ANY person who would choose to breed, given those circumstances.

From the standpoint of society we would probably be better of with a very high birthrate and everyone culled at 40...now this would be morally inexcusable an can never be allowed to happen but society would be better of in this situation than with a very low birthrate and most of the population living to 120. Hopefully we can find a sane comprimise between these two extremes.
I would not want to live in a "Logans Run" world. But we need enough children to support the elderly and maintain a vibrant economy

[Aeolus]

Eugenics is bad, people!

No argument. But let's work this issue through, what? If population levels are too high (say for food supplies and living space), and natural means are ineffective at balancing population levels because of technology(normally disease and our own combatitive natures rise up when population density increases, right?), then what is the answer?

I referred to my 'program' of choice because I couldn't think of a better idea for a desperate population, but there might well be one (for the record, I don't believe for a nanosecond that our population levels can get so high that disease can't rise to the challenge, but there you go).

Here is another thought, we live on a precarious...umm....precarious....what is word? Me am not know...anyway. certainly the united states is capable, (Food-wise) of supporting itself, but without modern advances in agriculture, GM foods and whatnot, say if there was some kind of ecological disaster in the US...how many people would die? I think that, given a breakdown of modern farming techniques, there would be an unprecedented loss of life worldwide! I mean, think about how EASY it would be for something to cause a sharp decrease in food production, How many people would DIE?! Millions! Then when we recovered from said ecological disaster, we'd have LOTS of food left over and every person on the planet would get pizza every day!!! (Okay, the last part was a joke, but seriously, what a precarious perch we all live on, eh? I mean, look how badly a little blackout crippled us! and I'm not saying that i'm mr. tough guy and a blackout means nothing to me. If I lost power for two days or somesuch, I would go out of my mind...I'm a product of the 80's! GIVE ME CLIMATE CONTROL, OR GIVE ME DEATH!)

But this is why there is no real overpopulation problem..it's self correcting to many people and either there is famine or infanticide...yes these are terrible things but societys rarlely let it get this far. Most people control how many children they can have (yes even poor people in primitive nations) As for resourse depletion as a resourse becomes more scarce the price rises and people find substitutes. That is why all those club of rome predictions fell apart.