Do you think that being homosexual is a natural regulation to avoid overpopulation on Earth?
(3 votes)
Loading...
(3 votes)Loading...
(3 votes)Loading...Similar Posts
She's changed her desire to have children? Can we build on that?
ByHugDick
I met my girlfriend five months ago on a dating app. She was undecided about having children, while I was determined to have children at some point. We're 22 and 23. Otherwise, we're a perfect match and love each other. You could tell that she regularly found children annoying, sometimes even disgusting, and she often…
Which birds were drawn here?
Hello to all bird lovers:) Unfortunately, I don't know much about bird species. Which birds are they? (are two different) I'd be interested:) Thanks in advance!
What color is an animal cell?
Hey people, I have a question for you. We're supposed to build a model of an animal cell in biology class, but what color is the outside of an animal cell? Can you help me? (Thanks in advance for all answers)
How can I live in the USA forever?
Germany has become so fucking boring. I want to spend my life in a better country. How can I live in the USA forever?
Evolution does not “think” in advance. It’s just about the current situation. Newly introduced animals on the island have, for example, often destroyed their own livelihood by their massive increase and have died. Homosexuality also occurs in many animals, and this can be even in endangered species.
It is astonishing that we often prefer similar people, but in love/sex we usually choose such a massively different person: one from the ‘other’ group human, the other sex.
Of course, this makes sense for reproduction. But we cover a wide range of what we like. If only one type of girl and one guy were preferred, then it would hardly be possible to multiply. For most, male and female, would never be ‘selected’. Therefore, it is good that we have a range of different sauces. Not all guys love the fragile, protective girl, but some also the self-confident, dominant; not only the slightly smaller girls, but also those who are bigger and sometimes the differences are based in that there is no girl at all;) And of course different.
Especially in homosexual couples one almost always sees that both partners are very different – just because it also comes through that one is more fascinated by what is different than oneself.
Right, evolution doesn’t think. But evolutionary changes that do nothing usually disappear.
The brother effect might already be a hint that a biological process acts here that prevents an overpopulation.
This is not wanted by evolution, because it does not want anything, but it is at least a practical effect.
As long as a change is not disadvantageous, it does not disappear. The natural selection can only sort out changes that have a negative effect on survival.
The brother effect can be explained much easier by an immune response from the mother. In the meantime, there are already first experimental studies that confirm a connection with the mother’s immune system.
To be honest, no intrinsic mechanism is known which prevents an overpopulation in any species of animal or plant. On the contrary, all documents speak for individual and not for group selection. The population size is limited or regulated (depending on whether density or not) by external factors: availability of resources, competition with other types, absence or absence of smokers.
So I would question the first point. The reason for the reproductive of homosexuals would rather be attributed to social pressure.
And in ethics and morals, we definitely leave the field of biology.
All other points are absolutely correct. These are all possible effects or effects of homosexuality. But I don’t think there’s any other way out.
But the question is whether homosexuality has this effect at all. I say no. Firstly, it is not said that homosexuals do not reproduce. There are many gay fathers and lesbian mothers. Secondly, there is the socio-biological explanation of the relative selection: by supporting homosexual individuals with their relatives, e.g. siblings, in the broadening of their descendants, they also contribute to the sharing of their own genes and contribute to their fitness. And thirdly, homosexual individuals can adopt boy and thus raise offspring that would otherwise leave the population. The same was observed in penguins and vultures.
Yeah, I’m sorry, we’re back on the rail that there might be any plan slipped off.
It’s not like that.
But the effect that homosexuality affects the population remains yes. And that it is a natural effect is also out of question.
Even if this is only a small part.
If, in any case, it contributes to the fact that social and art and culture are also strongly represented, open up new perspectives and enrich society.
This is very unlikely, as the number of people who are facing their own gender is far too insignificant. This certainly does not have an appreciable effect on the ever-growing overpopulation.
A “natural regulation” is also absurd.
This is nonsense, as there has been homosexuality in all societies and at all times.
Also in animals homosexual pairing is very widespread.
How does an occurrence in all societies and at all times and also in the animal kingdom speak against an influence on the polulation?
In the meantime, they are invented. So everyone is equal
😂
🥴🤺💥
Troll
There’s something like that in the animal kingdom. So fuck.
What does it say that it does not affect the population in the animal kingdom?
No, it’s just a disorder of sex drive.
This is wrong 🤦
Your comment is a disorder of your brain