So as I said a few posts back my thought processes confuse the hell out of me sometimes, so this just kinda popped into my head and I went with it.
The topic for tonight's discussion is homosexuality.
Has anyone noticed the increase in gay or lesbian population in the last, I don't know, 30 years? Now to me there only seems to be a few options as to why this could happen.
Here is my "evidence" as to my opinions.
Ancient Greece, famous for its art, philosophy and sciences. Also well known for it's gay relationships. Greece was and still is a challenging nation to get across on foot or even by car, meaning the city-states could never interact the way our cities do. This essentially confined the cities to their respective valleys, meaning that when a city reached a certain point in population the need to reproduce declined so it could meet certain economic needs i.e. food, water, and shelter. They lived within a society where their infant death rate was dramatically lower than the "barbarian" civilizations of ancient Germany and France, so they didn't need to reproduce like rabbits to maintain their populations. Ancient Greeks, by my logic then, could concentrate on the things that made their civilization great, art, science, medicine and methods of sex that would result in overwhelming populations, cuz lets face it sheep skins aren't that great of contraception.
Now fast forward to today, with almost 7 billion people on this planet right now we're getting close to fallout status. Millions of people are starving, going without water, and living in slums. We can no longer afford continue to populate the earth as rapidly as we do. In leading nations such as the U.S. and most of if not all of Europe, there is an incredibly low infant mortality rate and our elderly generally live to be older than ever before. After World War Two there was a dramatic baby boom, in my own family my grandparents had 5 sons. Given these factors, and the already sorry state of the economy, we've subconsciously come to realize that we can't continue to expand our population as we have in the past, and have turned to homosexuality as an outlet for sexual needs without the danger of pregnancy.
If there were a pandemic, a real one not this swine flu crap, that wiped out a large portion of the worlds population, I honestly feel that the homosexual population would decline dramatically in an effort to save the human species. The drive to procreate is a huge part of all people, even gays, we've all heard stories about gay men and women fighting for adoption rights. This drive would override all sexual preference in the person and turn into a need to preserve the tribe/pack/gaggle insert your favorite term of venery.
Ok, that's me waxing philosophical. I know I'm insane, I myself don't understand how this topic came up in my head... But sometimes strange things just dawn on me. Sorry if this offends anyone... but it's my opinion, if you want to talk to me about it comment or send me an email.
Hugs,
Drew
Posted by
Drew
6 comments:
Nice post... i agree about your population control theory, although I am not sure we would agree on the percentage of gays who would turn to "straight" tendencies if faced with a severe global population loss.
It is not strange to think that our society would mirror ancient greece so much. Hope you continue your ideas, they are always interesting to read! Have a nice evening, Sunday!
Lots of love,
Ryan
PS: Do you use MSN? Just curious because I saw that you said you chatted with some peeps. Tootles!
Well, if that's true, it certainly shoots the "gay gene(s)" idea out of the water. But one problem with your thought is that the preponderance of gays should be in the areas of the world where the malnutrition is found, not in the richest nations, some of which have birthrates below the replacement level and would become severely depopulated without high levels of immigration.
And the Greeks had their colonies as a safety valve, didn't they?
I do not believe there are more gay people within the last 30 years. I think it all falls down to the fact that it is much safer, and much more accepted to be gay. Where as 30 years ago, only in certain portions of our society was it a viable option to be open about your sexuality. They were the unseen minority.
I have read this idea of population control before. Wish I could remember where. However, the author debunked the idea based on the evenness of gay/straight percentages in every population. Population size, didn't seem to make any difference to the end totals. The native americans had a small population in a great many places, and homosexuality was accepted portion of their society. The only thing they were expected to live the rest of their lives as women, both as dress and as occupation.
Anyway, great blog post! Keep up the brain work! It looks good on you!
Biki
Yes - interesting (but then you always are!) but I think you need to look at visibility too.
There aren't necessarily more of us it's just that maybe we can see more gay people than we did when you could be locked up for life or even judicially murdered if you were seen to be gay.
I think it's the political and social (religious included) strictures against and downright taboos against showing you're gay which have artificially depressed the visibility of gay people in the past.
Now we also have to be careful because if we listened to the rulers of Iran we'd be told that there are hardly any gay people there.
What?
Interesting thoughts.
I don't agree with the simplicity of your argument, but it has some merit. I think gays/lesbians have just become more visible in the last couple decades due to greater acceptance - they were always there, just didn't show themselves.
Now, your population concept actually reminds me of something I learned in evolution called "frequency-dependent selection." Some characteristics (shall we say) like left-handedness and the like, are kept at a more or less constant frequency throughout history. It's conceivable that whatever forces governing sexuality do the same.
So, naturgesetz, this doesn't blow the "gay gene(s)" idea out of the water, but it certain complicates it and paints it in an evolutionary light. Of course, this is dependent on the belief of evolution and evolution being far more complex than simply "survival of the fittest." It's all quite exciting to learn and ponder about.
Wow! Everyone has interesting perspectives on your post. I'd comment further but my brain seems to be stuck in the mud. Is that where I get all my dirty thoughts? LOL!
Hope you had a good weekend buddy!
Post a Comment