Homosexuality and Population Growth?

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-08-20 05:06pm

Tom_Aurum wrote: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.

but the population is getting more conservative BECAUSE it's getting older. The elderly as a class are almost always more conservative. The cities are more liberal because younger people move to the cities. Once they get old they pack their bags and head for the Burbs

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-08-20 05:12pm

But the country is not the same as the wilderness. Feral cats and Dogs in the country are still surviving in a human modified enviroment. If mankind dies off most breeds of cat and dog and rat and cow and horse and sheep.........will die off. They can't really compete by them selves with Cougars, and Wolves and Bears and Deer.........

Lagmonster wrote:
innerbrat wrote: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.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-08-20 08:44pm

Chardok wrote: 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?

That's one big magic wand you're waving there, and once again the point remains that the other countries would be able to survive on their food stores long enough to come up with a solution, wether that be getting imported food from somewhere else, or increasing their output of food production internally untill they can support themselves, and possibly export too.

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?

There are two ways I can see us going towards Hydroponics really quickly
1. We stop these outrageous subsidies and people trend toward the cheaper, and yet at the same time much better producer of Hydroponic Technology.
2. A catatastrophe happens and Farmland is sulled, leaving the only way left available as Hydroponic growth. This fits rather nicely into your hypothetical situation.

And if this happens int he future odds are that we will have gone towards hydroponics, there isn't going to be an industry wide shift, but there will be a gradual change over until eventually there will be a industrial wide shift.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-08-20 08:48pm

All good points....excellent points, in fact
I wont attempt to counterpoint, you've done well! (Not that slapping me down is any large accomplishment!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-20 11:37pm

Innerbrat, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. You are pointing out (quite rightly) that any genetic deviation which survives is fit by definition.

This is true, however, I would hasten to point out that you are assuming that evolutionary fitness = desirability. When someone says that our gene pool is deteriorating, he is not necessarily claiming that it is somehow defying the laws of evolution; he is saying that our genetic diversity is developing in a manner which is not favourable from a standpoint of where we want to be and what we want to achieve as a society.

For example, diabetes is not being selected out because we can keep diabetics alive. However, if it were possible to magically eliminate diabetes from the gene pool through genetic modification (as opposed to eugenics), would we not want to live in a diabetes-free world? Is that not a form of genetic diversity that we could just as well live without? What possible benefit can we derive from diabetes?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-08-20 11:39pm

interesting point.....and very.....succinct (context?)

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-21 02:27am

Darth Wong wrote:What possible benefit can we derive from diabetes?

Inability to eat sugars and thus forcing people to be thinner? Consider it natural prettification of the species.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-21 04:04am

Darth Wong wrote:For example, diabetes is not being selected out because we can keep diabetics alive. However, if it were possible to magically eliminate diabetes from the gene pool through genetic modification (as opposed to eugenics), would we not want to live in a diabetes-free world? Is that not a form of genetic diversity that we could just as well live without? What possible benefit can we derive from diabetes?

OK, if (and I'm not saying you can't) you can isolate one gene that causes diabetes and show that it has no other effect on the phenotype (interaction with other genes etc etc, then by all means take it out.
the trouble is, when people start applying it to disorders with non-genetic or complex causes, like "IQ"
or when people call things a disorder that aren't that serious - like myopia and mild learning disorders, and then think they can wipe these out with no adverse effects.

I'm not anti-GM, by any means, I just think it should be handled with care.

Lagmonster,

It occurs to me that I missed the main point in our discussion of symbiotic (and parasitic) species - that even if some members of the species could survive without human culture, many individuals couldn't, which was the point of bringing them up in comparision to an artificially supported humans. Those members of any species that have exploited niches with human civilisation and are consequantially dependant on it, do not make the gene pool as a whole 'weak', which was my original point.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-08-21 05:08pm

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What possible benefit can we derive from diabetes?
Inability to eat sugars and thus forcing people to be thinner? Consider it natural prettification of the species.

You're disgusting.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-08-21 07:53pm

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What possible benefit can we derive from diabetes?
Inability to eat sugars and thus forcing people to be thinner? Consider it natural prettification of the species.

Pretty is entirely subjective. But in my case, you are absolutely correct.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-21 10:35pm

kojikun wrote:Voluntary sterility doesnt make you incapable of having kids, just makes it impossible to do it via sex.

Great. All of the bills, none of the fun. Plus, it's unnatural and instills a dependency on technology to control us because we can't control ourselves. I see no negatives here.

Honestly its a better idea then not. We should sterilise all males at the age of 13 or 15 or something, after collected semen samples, that way they can fuck their brains out without having to worry about stupid pregnancies (like happened to a friend of mine whos 17 and has a fucking son)

Right. Why be responsible for our behavior when we can just have our plumbing sucked dry and ripped out?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-21 11:23pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
kojikun wrote:Voluntary sterility doesnt make you incapable of having kids, just makes it impossible to do it via sex.
Great. All of the bills, none of the fun. Plus, it's unnatural and instills a dependency on technology to control us because we can't control ourselves. I see no negatives here.

Honestly its a better idea then not. We should sterilise all males at the age of 13 or 15 or something, after collected semen samples, that way they can fuck their brains out without having to worry about stupid pregnancies (like happened to a friend of mine whos 17 and has a fucking son)
Right. Why be responsible for our behavior when we can just have our plumbing sucked dry and ripped out?

Koji hasn't read Brave New World, obviously.