Nostradamus - 2012 - Armageddon - End of the World Scenarios - Natural Disasters

*donniedarko* · Mar 2nd, 2007, 2:38 PM

The human species, of all species on the planet, displays the single remarkable trait of REDUCING population size in the presence of abundant resources. All other species populations scale proportionally to available resource whereas humans scale INVERSELY. Why is this so? How does this relate to behaviour? More specifically homosexuality?

This chart shows a common hypothesis for the prevelance of over-population in Third World countries and an apparent series of selection factors resulting in the relatively low fertility or relaxed selection for high feritility in First World countries. Indeed, there appears to be a paradox in evolutionary theory because many humans in first world countries CHOOSE not to have ANY children. This brings there genetic fitness to ZERO. They are not passing on their genes, and one would think that if these behaviours had a genetic basis, that such behaviours would be swiftly eradicated.

The emergence of memetics and the concept of the blank slate hypothesis for human behaviour (that is nearly all complex behaviour in humans is LEARNED as opposed to INHERITED) means that for the most part, such behavioural choices exist. Further to that, it means that people can not only increase their fitness through genetic drive to reproduce but through a "legacy" drive to influence the memes of a following generation.

How does homosexuality tie into all of this? In Third World countries, where the ability to pursue a legacy is all but impossible under the constraints of illiteracy, poverty and disease, means that any behaviours that have some genetic basis and are regards as low fertility, for example homosexual tendencies, will be swiftly removed from the population due to selection OR memetically supressed due to behavioural selection. HOWEVER, in first world countries, where the ability to influence further generations is facilitated by the high levels of literacy and education and the general wealth and technology that promotes the survival of offspring allows such behaviours to thrive.

Where am I going with this... I believe that this sheds some light on the nature vs. nurture arguement. As we know, there is no line in the sand. There is nothing that is entirely one way or the other, but we can look at qualities and say to what extent can a genetic phenotype be modified by environmental interactions. This to me is the perfect explanation for homosexuality. Relaxed memetic AND genetic selection towards high fertility behaviours allows through drift an increase in the frequency of those behaviours, in this case we could look at homosexuality as one. Another behaviour is women who choose not to have children as another.

What do you think?

peace

dd

*donniedarko* · Mar 9th, 2007, 12:32 AM

Wow, I made a post suggesting that being HOMOSEXUAL is a direct byproduct of FIRST WORLD OPULENCE and NOONE? replies...???

hot damn, I am good.

Perfectionist · Mar 9th, 2007, 6:35 AM

Great post ..... although I think Homosexuality is a by-product of greater populations ..... maybe nature has an in-built optimum ..... when concentrations of people increase beyond a certain threshold, a part of the DNA is activated which aids in decreasing it ???

**Cartesiantheater** · Mar 9th, 2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfectionist

Great post ..... although I think Homosexuality is a by-product of greater populations ..... maybe nature has an in-built optimum ..... when concentrations of people increase beyond a certain threshold, a part of the DNA is activated which aids in decreasing it ???

(in the event that you're not joking...)
I personally can't see HOW that could happen, but I sure wouldn't put it past mother nature and natural selection... together they've accomplished other ridiculously complex phenomena... hmmm...

Perfectionist · Mar 9th, 2007, 1:12 PM

I dunno exactly ...... but I'm sure it's possible ...... maybe through hormonal/pheromonal concentrations ......

Too many people within a given area/population would increase the concentration of a secreted chemical from sweat, breath etc within the air ..... which is then detected by men/women and slowly activates a certain gene within the DNA of the offspring ...... or something along those lines !!

*donniedarko* · Mar 9th, 2007, 2:04 PM

An interesting hypothesis but rather unlikely. Generational control of genes is rarely observed (only in plant's so far) and completely unobserved in humans. If your pheromonal hypothesis were correct, than it would probably work along the lines of this:

increase population -> increase [pheromone] -> suppression of "homosexuality" gene expression -> increased "heterosexual" behaviour -> increased population

however, there is no hard science or even theory to suggest that pheromones have that level of control over our behaviour.

In fact, humanity as a whole seems to have escaped instinctive behavioural control (for the most part) which is why we are so adaptable from the aspect of behavioural choices. Behavioural adaptation is rapid, reversible and incredibly variant.

An extension of the theory. This isn't rooted in DNA or genetics. It's rooted in behavioural selection. High fertility behaviours are selected for in poor countries (see above) via memetics, in rich countries, behaviours which are not highly fertile (like never having kids, or being homosexual) are not selected against and are therefore allowed to persist. That's why its a relaxed selection hypothesis.

grendel 13 · Mar 9th, 2007, 2:20 PM

when you are rich you have the ability to do what it is that truly makes you happy, you are allowed to fully explore you interests, you spend your time doing that which makes you happy, you become selfish, you realize that children will be work and will take time away from your interests, therefore you see no point in having children.

when you are poor, you can't afford to do anything fun, or you are too busy trying to survive, you don't have time for fun. the only release from the hardships of poverty are your family. you also realize that more kids equals more hands for more labor.

also poor people cannot afford trojans or abortions.

**Cartesiantheater** · Mar 9th, 2007, 2:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donniedarko

An extension of the theory. This isn't rooted in DNA or genetics. It's rooted in behavioural selection. High fertility behaviours are selected for in poor countries (see above) via memetics, in rich countries, behaviours which are not highly fertile (like never having kids, or being homosexual) are not selected against and are therefore allowed to persist. That's why its a relaxed selection hypothesis.

I like that one a little better. I think the other is still possible, but very remotely. I just can't see it happening Perf's way.

Perfectionist · Mar 9th, 2007, 4:26 PM

OK, how about another theory ..... Men turn gay if most of the women they are exposed to during their childhood ..... are ugly !!

Becks · Mar 14th, 2007, 11:59 PM

I don't think homosexuality is a by-product of Developed Nations opulence. In Vancouver I see plenty and know plenty of gay people from Less Developed and Developing Nations like China, The Philipines, Indonesia and Korea who have come here as refugees because they are ostricized and meant to feel ashamed of their sexual preferences by their governments and cultures.

Yes, many people in Deverloped Nations choose not to have children but at the same time, many want children and can't for numerous reasons. Some women are highly infertile naturally and some (like myself) don't have a partner to have a child with. In my culture it's no longer an option to just wait for a guy to come along to take care of me. I'm cool with that, but this makes it harder to produce a family.