Overpopulation....a nature way of reducing human population

  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Sep 06, 2009 2:41 AM GMT
    You know mother nature have her way to maintain balance and harmony on this earth. The planet is getting overpopulated . I know some guy will not agree with me, stuff about non equal resources distribution, rich nation against the poor, greedy rich people and poor and etc. But the truth is, there less resources, jobs for everybody especially in poorer country.

    If only I was born straight, I probably will have big family (like most of the family in my country). But since I am gay ...I have none. Most of the gay friend I know dont get married (if they do very late and have probably one or two kid). Is being gay a nature answer to overpopulation problem?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 2:42 AM GMT
    Space.. the final frontier.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 3:15 AM GMT
    over population is mostly caused by third world countries, first world countries without immigration are shrinking, people are waiting long and longer before starting a family and then keep to just one maybe two children.

    How often do you see a massive family in the western worlds, I don't know anyone who has more then three children and even then three children familys are rare, I my self am from a 4 child family and even back then it wasn't every day.

    I don't think nature will have a solution to dispose of us, we are to resourceful and murderous, we have the brains and desire to live and can survive things no other species on the planet can survive (well, excluding bacteria)

    I think natures solution to us will be to die.
  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Sep 06, 2009 3:31 AM GMT
    liltanker,

    Well, that truth to that. But with 10% of the population are not into a sexual intercouse that led to having a child probably Mother nature is telling us to stop breeding. The problem with this Third World country even the gay men will have children because they are expeceted too, pressure by religion and society obligation.

    As far as survival is concern, I agree with you. Human being are way to smart (or to dumb) that they will survive everthough that mean sharing a one bedroom house with 8 to 7 kids plus a grandmother . Surviving with one meal a day, unemployement, no hope for education in some ghetto and shanties town.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 3:44 AM GMT
    zakariahzol said...Is being gay a nature answer to overpopulation problem?

    Being gay is the answer to EVERYTHING. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 3:55 AM GMT
    Pandemics are mother's nature's way of reducing population.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 4:30 AM GMT
    10% is absolutely TINY, if we were suddenly removed our disappearance although would make some happy would have minimal impact on the environmental side of things and our numbers would be quickly replaced.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 5:27 AM GMT
    jprichva saidI've often wondered if the production of homosexuals in a population is some kind of Malthusian mechanism to keep the population from exploding.

    If so, it was in existence at times when the population was faltering, too. And it certainly doesn't seem to have been very effective overall, especially in modern times when the population keeps growing to unprecedented numbers.

    Rather, I've mused whether humans, being social creatures that have practiced a division of labor for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, do in fact benefit as a species by the unique skills of gays & lesbians. And by our general disinterest in having children of our own, which frees us for tasks of broader societal benefit.

    The flaw in that hypothesis is that animals also have a naturally occurring incidence of homosexuality, and within some species that are not strongly social. Yet I do think that discovering an evolutionary reason for animal homosexuality first will provide a clue, if not a direct correlation, to the reasons for human homosexuality.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Sep 06, 2009 9:51 AM GMT
    Is being gay a nature answer to overpopulation problem?

    The strictly gay population is too small to have any effect imo.
  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Sep 06, 2009 1:13 PM GMT
    Jp said,

    "since millions and millions of men and women who might otherwise have followed their same-sex natures almost certainly married and procreated and died in misery over the millennia."

    A tragedy , isnt it. Brokeback Marriage , repeated million of times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 2:11 PM GMT
    zakariahzol saidIs being gay a nature answer to overpopulation problem?

    No because society allows straight people to not have kids and gay people to adopt in some countries.

    Also, the world isn't overpopulated. There are a lot of sociologists and scientists alike who agree that the world can hold much more, it is just the concentration of people is much higher in some places than other.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Sep 06, 2009 2:29 PM GMT
    The simple answer is no.

    It's common for a lot of people to talk about traits being good for the species. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, evolution does not care what is good for a species. Instead, it favors any genetic variant which does a relatively better job at making additional copies of itself compared to the other variant versions. If there were some sort of genetic predisposition to homosexuality --- the majority of the research says there's not, though there is still some question about a specific region on the X chromosome contributing to gay men (Xq28 to be exact) -- individuals with that predisposition would on average have fewer children and grandchildren than those without it, and so selection would make that predisposition rarer and rarer and rarer, until it was so rare that selection wouldn't be able to detect it. That would be a frequency in humans of less than 1 in 10,000 on most chromosomes, or less than 1 in 6,600 on the X chromosome. In reality, it looks like about 1 in 20 men is gay (the 1 in 10 number from the Kinsey study appears to have been overinflated by his study's inclusion of the prison population, where sex between men is more of a function of the lack of women than of preference on the part of the men).

    Things that benefit the group, but at a cost to the individual, are not evolutionarily stable because they are open to cheating. If you have a village with 100 families, and each agree to have just 2 children, the population will be pretty stable. Now imagine that a single individual has a mutation that causes them to ignore the agreement and have 3 kids. Now, 3 of the 201 children come from that cheater, and half of them (1.5 on average) will have that genetic variant. 1.5 out of 201 is bigger than 1 out of 200, so the mutation is spreading. And it will continue to spread, even as the village runs out of food, until such a point when individuals with that variant average no more children than individuals without that variant; say, for example, the other villagers learn to recognize the variant ones and refuse to have kids with them.

    The only circumstance in which you can have selection at the level of a group overpower this selection at the level of the individual is when a) members of the group are drastically more closely related to each other than to individuals outside of the group, and b) only a small subset of the group is capable of reproducing, and then only with the assistance of the rest of the group. Cases of this include multicellularity (which is why your liver doesn't try to make new copies of itself, but leaves it up to the testicles to reproduce the entire body in a new offspring), and a few types of insect colonies. Even in these cases, that balance can break down, and sadly does fairly often: cancer is essentially a given cell breaking the deal and deciding to keep reproducing itself despite the harm it does to the rest of your body, and the fact that it will ultimately kill itself.

    Nature does not care about the future. The reasons why populations of most species tend to be stable over the long run are much less benign than homosexuality. In general, when a population gets too large, one or more of the following things happen:

    a) Individuals run out of food and starve to death;
    b) Whatever predators the species have themselves become more abundant, and consequently eat more of the prey;
    c) A disease sweeps through the population, due to more crowding and lower average health levels from lack of nutrition, higher stress, and lower sanitation.

    If you're interested in a popular book that helps you learn about why evolution acts on individuals, rather than on groups, try The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 2:34 PM GMT
    I don't think overpopulation is an issue... basically it's all down to planning we have to plan for the future needs of areas with high population now. Most of the problems associated with high population density could have easily been fixed with proper planning 50-80 years ago

    But two points studies are showing that African and Asian population growth (number of kids per female) is falling and very stable population pyramids. This creates a middle area bulge of workers that out number dependents, if correctly funneled into economic process it stands the best chance of lifting a country out of poverty but there are questions if particularly Africa has the political stability to do it.

    I've also read a study that the genetic associations with homosexuality in males when passed to female siblings can cause hypersexuality and that the female siblings of gay males tend to for genetic or social reasons have more kids and this is how Homosexuality genes don't die out under Darwinian evolution theory. If this were true then the effect of homosexuality on population would be negligible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 2:46 PM GMT
    MSUBioNerd saidThings that benefit the group, but at a cost to the individual, are not evolutionarily stable because they are open to cheating... And it will continue to spread, even as the village runs out of food, until such a point when individuals with that variant average no more children than individuals without that variant; say, for example, the other villagers learn to recognize the variant ones and refuse to have kids with them.

    I haven't read Dawkins, so perhaps you'll indulge me with a bit of tutoring. My question about that village model is that it's closed. Wouldn't another solution be for the excess population to migrate elsewhere, to another village, or to start a new one? Certainly humans have been great colonizers throughout our history, often for exactly these reasons of overpopulation straining local resources.

    We only now have a serious global problem because we've run out of figurative villages, the ability of the planet to support such a large human population being strained, unless some other part of the equation can be changed. But even then, there must be a finite number to the supportable population on Earth. Then we might see something of this model, but I'm not sure we have before.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Sep 06, 2009 3:01 PM GMT
    Yes, when given an open system, a local population producing more individuals that can be sustained in that location will lead to emigration. In ecological terms, populations that produce more emigrants than accept immigrants are called source populations, while those that accept more immigrants than produce emigrants, and yet remain stable in size or shrink are called sink populations. There's a pretty extensive ecological and population genetics literature on the interplay between source and sink populations.

    But, the point I was trying to make with that village model is that even when growth is bad for the village, if it's good for the specific genetic variants that are growing, it will happen anyway and the village will suffer the consequences of that growth.

    Such evolutionary forces can actually cause entire species to go extinct. When parasites can spread to the next generation through eggs but not sperm, these parasites will do better if the females the infect have daughters instead of sons, and thus some of them have stumbled across ways to selective increase the relative number of daughters that infected females produce (often by killing male embryos early in development). As the infection spreads, more and more of the population will be female, until there is a definite chance that every single female in a generation is infected; and that will be the last generation of that species unless by chance one of those females also has the mutation(s) needed to make it parthenogenic (capable of female cloning). There are a couple of insect species which appear to be very close to extinction for this very reason, and once the insect goes extinct so does the parasite. Yet even now, selection is still driving those parasites to push their host females to have daughters, not sons, as the parasites don't make it from the infected sons into their offspring.
  • Celticmusl

    Posts: 4330

    Sep 06, 2009 3:36 PM GMT
    I studied Comparative Psychology, where basically you compare animals to humans and how we are so incredibly superior to all the other animals(queue canned laughter here). It is true in nature when there is an overpopulation such as with cockroaches and confined monkeys you see homosexual activities exponentially.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 3:48 PM GMT

    And dolphins and rats, Celticmusl!


    That book we all love to hate said to be fruitful and multiply (average lifespan then about 30 years and three out of every five kids never made it to puberty), which gives a teeny little insight as to why gay was a sin. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    It's not that people have been fucking like rabbits.
    It's that medicine has advanced to where they've stopped dropping like files!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 4:16 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    And dolphins and rats, Celticmusl!


    That book we all love to hate said to be fruitful and multiply (average lifespan then about 30 years and three out of every five kids never made it to puberty), which gives a teeny little insight as to why gay was a sin. icon_wink.gif


    Ah, I'm so glad you've made this comment. I thought I was the only one who viewed that "Do not..." this way. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 5:03 PM GMT
    I keep hoping for Children of Men to become a reality. Mother nature just needs to say no to more humans. Failing that, we need a one child for the planet policy for at least the next 100 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 5:07 PM GMT
    tahoejock saidI keep hoping for Children of Men to become a reality. Mother nature just needs to say no to more humans. Failing that, we need a one child for the planet policy for at least the next 100 years.


    Tell me about it. Visiting my cousin in one of the boros of NYC. Some of these people are breeding like rats!icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 5:09 PM GMT
    MsclDrew saidI don't think overpopulation is an issue... basically it's all down to planning we have to plan for the future needs of areas with high population now. Most of the problems associated with high population density could have easily been fixed with proper planning 50-80 years ago


    It's a huge issue. Food shortages, shortage of clean water, disease, disease, disease, trash for as far as the eye can see. You're right, though. Planning is required and we don't do that. We act like it's everyone's God-given right to make as many kids as they want, regardless of whether or not they can provide for them. And, if they can't, in this country we pay them.

    Numerous scientists have weighed in on what size population is sustainable on the planet and virtually every one says that we're WAY overpopulated. It's pretty hard to says that overpopulation isn't a problem when more than half the world doesn't even have running water, much less a local grocery store, decent schools, access to health care, or iPods in their pocket. There's simply no way that the entire planet can live a middle-class western lifestyle. We'd need several planet Earths to sustain that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
    StudlyScrewRite said It's not that people have been fucking like rabbits.
    It's that medicine has advanced to where they've stopped dropping like files!


    Agreed! But why can't we exercise any self control? Why can't we see that any organism that grows out of control in a finite environment ends up wreaking havoc?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2009 5:13 PM GMT
    Celticmusl saidI studied Comparative Psychology, where basically you compare animals to humans and how we are so incredibly superior to all the other animals(queue canned laughter here). It is true in nature when there is an overpopulation such as with cockroaches and confined monkeys you see homosexual activities exponentially.


    Have you seen the 70s documentary Ratopolis?
  • superboy32

    Posts: 48

    Sep 06, 2009 5:23 PM GMT
    If the human population would stop reproducing like cockroaches our population wouldn't be so bad. I live in Utah and it''s crazy that an immediate family can consist of 20 siblings and don't even get me started with the polygamists ... 50 kids 4 wives?

    I say we do what they do in China, 1 child per married unit! We need to celebrate the gays for not reproducing, people on death row just give them the needle and kill em', actually enforce the 3 strikes rule in the jail system and national death penalty for those who murder, reduce welfare assistance if the mother can't keep her legs closed or the man can't keep it in his pants ... sterilization!

    Well maybe a Logan's Run scenario?
    Logan%27s_Run3.jpg