/sci/ - Science & Math

[hououin kyouma No.7313287]

Homosexuality is population control in nature provides ?

[Anonymous No.7313291]

>>7313287
> ?

Are you French? Get out.

[hououin kyouma No.7313292]

>>7313291
Nope.

[Anonymous No.7313317]

>>7313287
>Implication that for reproduction, love or attraction is the main required ingredient

No

[Anonymous No.7313338]

>>7313287
reminder that there is no purpose to life

[Anonymous No.7313355]

>>7313287
That is retarded. Violence/war would act as a much better population control method in terms of evolution. Why would you evolve to not reproduce?

[Anonymous No.7313363]

>>7313287

In nature and history, Homosexuality tended to lead to NTR rather than a loss of reproductive potential.

>>7313355
>why even k type reproducers?
Asked every r type reproducer ever (because they don't have the mental capacity and intergenerational cultural transmission needed to formulate the answer for themselves)

[Anonymous No.7313364]

>>7313287
maybe? who cares
go back to pol and tell fags that they have no rights and should burn in hell or something

[Anonymous No.7313365]

>>7313287
Bi-sexuality is normal but rare nature habit.

[Anonymous No.7313457]

>>7313365
Not that rare is it? I thought dogs, monkeys, dolphins etc were fucking members of their own sex all the time?

[Anonymous No.7313476]

>>7313457
Bisexuality should be the norm.

[Anonymous No.7313482]

>>7313364

[Anonymous No.7313483]

>>7313364
>hell
You tried so hard I feel like I'm on /x/

[Anonymous No.7313487]

>>7313363
Wtf is NTR?

[Anonymous No.7313488]

>>7313487
>I don't know how to google.

[Anonymous No.7313489]

>>7313457
According to Jane Goodall, a lot of species only exhibit homosexual behavior in captivity (not that plenty don't in the wild).

[Anonymous No.7313491]

>>7313488

[Anonymous No.7313493]

>>7313491
Ok so you can google, but clearly you can't read.

[Anonymous No.7313494]

Fag here, it's not like I can't fuck a girl you know.
My sperm is not affected by the homosexuality so I think the baby will be fine.
Anyway, since I and the other fags can fuck both gender, I don't think it would cause any harm to the reproduction. Humans won't extinct so don't worry.
It's just that fucking girls feel pretty meh. It's like
>I don't have any boy to fuck right now, so maybe I should try it on a girl instead of using my hand
Kinda like that.

[Anonymous No.7313496]

>>7313491
Just click the fucking Urban dict link retard. It's on the top of that page.

[Anonymous No.7313497]

>>7313493
>>7313496

Wait, so rather than anything scientific, it's a fucking weeaboo term for cuckolding? That's actually what you were trying to say? Jesus Christ. I dismissed that because "well nothing here says anything about biology"

[Anonymous No.7313528]

>>7313287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12213516
>female attractions for males are innate (non-volatile compounds)
>female attractions for males are also Pavlovian (volatile compounds)
Correlatively, sexuality is possibly learned (fetishes). There seems no evidence, or research, that includes a control group that hasn't been informed of sexuality standards, for non-biased (innate) attraction, nor is there reason for such.

>>7313338
>Purpose
It seems that obvervation is inherent with reality (video); order is also inherent (the law of conservation of energy); so objective morality is thus apparent.

https://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E

..If the experiment would result the same in other manners, and it remain fundamental -- the only explanation for the initial development of observation is an Observer.

[Anonymous No.7313574]

>>7313497
You're not alone man, I also don't believe the connection between homosexuality and cucks

[Anonymous No.7313578]

>>7313528
But how often are fetishes so pronounced that they completely override the innate attraction? In other words, what you're saying makes sense for bisexuals, in that they've learned a fetish, but no gay people, in that they've completely lost their innate attraction.

[Anonymous No.7313650]

>>7313578
Not necessarily, because training could also account for the "reduction" of innate attraction; just like there's training for reducing meal consumption or other similar ideas. In this, there is still attraction for food, but is lessened by experience -- possibly unnoticed, even.

In other words, the answer of how often is a lot, apparently. Once a fetish is found, it's often reinforced so profoundly that it's brought up in conversation, etc.

[Anonymous No.7313660]

>>7313528
>order is inherent, therefore claims grounded in metaphysical discourse are objective

I hope your mom dies tonight

[Anonymous No.7313687]

>>7313660
"Metaphysical discourse" isn't the whole -- there's more in decency than what's discussed about it.

[Anonymous No.7313858]

>>7313287
consider the following:
>assuming that indeed the human body can sense if resources are scarce and makes itself like its own gender/make its offspring like the same gender while it's in the womb.
>if only a certain % of the population has this gene that causes this, and the rest does not, the moment a period is experienced with little resources, all the people with the "dormant gay gene" are wiped out, the gene has to evolve from scratch all over. This takes a really long time.
>Assuming the entire population has the gay gene, then the entire population dies out, an even worse outcome.

conclusion: "dormant gay gene for population control" cannot be the 'purpose' or origin of homosexuality

[Anonymous No.7313890]

homosexuality is as old as sexuality itself
it expresses nature's subtle sense of humor

[Anonymous No.7313906]

>>7313528
>>7313687
Fuck off Deepak

[Anonymous No.7313942]

>>7313650
This makes no sense to the number of gay people who have never felt anything but homosexual attraction. It also doesn't explain twin studies where twins separated at birth are still more likely to be teh same orientation than two random individuals. Finally, it implies that fetishes are entirely learned and not at all innate.

[Anonymous No.7313950]

>>7313942
Why can't it be both?
Some people are born with a particular attraction, some gain it.

[Anonymous No.7313955]

>>7313950
>Some people are born with a particular attraction
these people are lying or stupid. Everything is gained.

[Anonymous No.7313958]

>>7313858
>implying homosexuality is entirely controlled by genes
>implying all with the dormant gay gene would consistently be gay in that scenario 100% of the time

[Anonymous No.7313965]

>>7313955
1. Obviously everything isn't. To imply genetics don't influence behavior is absurd.
2. born with =/= not gained. Factors in the womb during early development can make big fucking differences.

[Anonymous No.7314123]

>>7313942
>implying
None of that is accurate.

"Suppressed" in no manner implies conscious suppression. I can't speak for all cases, but I was attracted to girls from an incredibly early age -- like before K school. Of the same ages, relatively, as well: in one instance, at home listening on a children's tape of a singing solo at the most beautiful singing voice, and what could happen if we would be meeting. And another case, before I could read (around entering K), helping a girl out behind a restaurant carry some milk -- quite a bit of age up, but even those same features are still attractive: skin texture, complexion, etc (similar with the blonde, young actress, "well, yeah" gif).

There are more reasons for fetishes than genes, including interpretation of the same volatile and non-volatile scents, in accordance with surroundings and summaries. Even foot fetishes are possibly correlated with how feet and genital signals enter the spinal cord at the same time; and that their sensory mapping is incredibly close (picture).

[Anonymous No.7314158]

>>7313890
lmfao I once read an article about these gay ducks and how they stole eggs from female ducks so they could create together, and how their "offspring" actually had higher chances of survival because it had two males protecting it

[Anonymous No.7314163]

>>7314123
And plenty of gay people were attracted to people of the same sex as long as you've been attracted to girls.

>there are more reasons for fetishes than genes
Nobody implied there weren't. Just that they weren't 100% gained.

[Anonymous No.7314167]

>>7314158
Yeah. Gay ducks are pretty boss

[Anonymous No.7314188]

>>7314167
>tfw no duck boyfriend

[Anonymous No.7314197]

>>7313338
eat
reproduce
survive

[Anonymous No.7314200]

>>7314197
But why? What intrinsic value is there? What difference does it make if the Earth is teeming with life or another dead rock?

[Anonymous No.7314206]

>>7314200
there's no intrinsic value
values are allocated
ALWAYS
if there is no conscience to allocate values, everything remains in it's own self-fulfilling existence, and after the consciences are killed (for example if there are only humans in the entire universe and we die), existence will go on just like it did before

[Anonymous No.7314217]

>>7314206
So then aren't there better things to live for than just biological necessities?

[Anonymous No.7314221]

>>7314163
OK, but initial attraction also isn't based in anything further (the idea of sex), except that further life is possible -- per se ("obviously something's up").

[Anonymous No.7314223]

>>7314217
If you think so. You're the only manager of your life and it will have the meaning you want

[Anonymous No.7314225]

>>7314206
> >>7313528

[Anonymous No.7314241]

>>7314221
wat

[Anonymous No.7314257]

Male homosexuality increases the likelihood that sisters will have children, ensuring propagation of the genes that contribute to it. In social species, there's the additional benefit of having extra adults around to care for the young.

> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217
> In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters.

Also confirmed in several other species (use a citation index to see).
> e.g. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1809/20150429

[Anonymous No.7314269]

>>7314241
Opposites attract, including hormones; there's actual reward in their meeting in sweat -- even for the absorbent qualities of the skin. Some of the most powerful reactions are the smallest.

[Anonymous No.7314282]

>>7314269
I'm a gay man. The biggest thing that turns me on is smell. And only certain guys smell good to me. And for inexplicable reasons, I've fallen deep for some guys and can't feel anything for other guys who I have much more in common with and find more physically attractive.

If there isn't something biological going on there, I don't know what it is, anon. Maybe stop relying on your "well it makes sense to me" and actually do research on the subject.

[Anonymous No.7314284]

>>7313287
No, and that has been already answered by dawkins

[Anonymous No.7314300]

>>7314282
>response under scientific statement
>completely anecdotal

[Anonymous No.7314314]

>>7314300
Take an intro to logic class, or read wikipedia or something. If someone posits the claim "X is the reason for Y", then you simply have to provide one example of X not being the reason for Y to disprove the statement.

[Anonymous No.7314336]

yes, rats in a cage theory.. very looked down upon because it would imply a level of vast evolution/ phermones or rna changing dna expression in realtime... only now are we finding that it actually happens in things like obesety( being overweight makes your children more likely to be on a genetic level) so i imagine it's just a matter of time till it's found true

[Anonymous No.7314351]

>>7314282
>>7314314
I'm also a gay guy and I don't get the smell thing tbh.

Balls smell turns me on but that's pretty much it.

So there's your counterexample I guess.

[Anonymous No.7314408]

>>7314314
Nothing in that post "claims x is the reason for y". PS, in previous statements "initial attraction" is referring about first interactions with attraction overall.

[Anonymous No.7314419]

>>7314408
I'll be honest. I'm not even sure WHAT that post says, but in deciphering it to the best of my ability, it seemed to me that the anon was implying that because men and women are opposites, they are biologically attracted to one another.

>>7314351
Yeah, very few people seem to get it. I think I might have a more sensitive nose or something. Ball smell can be overpowering really easily for me, too.

[Anonymous No.7314434]

>>7314419
Testosterone and estrogen -- etc.; there's a lot more than "they're opposites". One reward is a supply of hormones that aren't ordinarily there.

[Anonymous No.7314669]

>>7313287
Nope. Once your genetics peek to a certain level of purity you automatically become gay. It's so that some of us can be productive (like we're needed) until we die while the rest of you stupid shits waste your time with women and children.

[Anonymous No.7314684]

>>7314206
Then your first answer is meaningless as it has nothing to do with this.

[Anonymous No.7314709]

Homosexuality is just an error in our genetic code.

Like cancer and mental illnesses and other shit that our bodies develop but gives us no benefit.

[Anonymous No.7314716]

>>7314434
And why are those reward and supply hormones better than the ones that apparently exist between pheremonally-compatible same sex couples?

I just don't seem to understand the point you're making.

[Anonymous No.7314720]

>>7314709
>but gives us no benefit

But classifying it with cancer and mental illness implies that it's a detriment.

[Anonymous No.7314752]

>>7314720
well from an evolutionary standpoint it's on par with being sterile, a reproductive dead end

doesn't mean they can't be a functioning part of human society

[Anonymous No.7314765]

>>7314752
It's never historically been a reproductive dead end.

[Anonymous No.7314790]

>>7314765
I don't really see where you get off making that kind of claim when it's next to impossible to prove or disprove.

Also there would be varying degrees of homosexuality where some men might still have children, due to societal pressure while being generally attracted to other men.

[Anonymous No.7314796]

>>7314790

Many homosexuals both now and in the past have had children for various reasons.

And it would be a pretty trivial thing to prove or disprove.

[Anonymous No.7314807]

>>7314720
>But classifying it with cancer and mental illness implies that it's a detriment.
Cancer isn't a detriment.
It' a clock that kills the old to make way for the new.
Vital for the species, even if you don't like what it does to individuals.

[Anonymous No.7314811]

>>7314796
we can't say how many gay men did not have children due to their sexual orientation

it may be a 98% dead end for all we know or maybe only a small minority of gays didn't have children

and again, we need to consider varying degrees of homosexual tendencies

[Anonymous No.7314823]

>>7314807
in general reproduction is preferable to immortality, which also means death is a positive factor for development

[Anonymous No.7314839]

>>7314716
It's. more. than. pheromones. ..Is the idea.

Testosterone increases female sexual arousal; didn't immediately find a study, but there's probably a very similar reverse situation.

[Anonymous No.7314848]

>>7313494
This, plenty of closet gays fuck women. Autism is a far more effective form of population control. I think it probably really is population control because as a society advances it learns how to make more food, care for more babies and gets bigger up until a point where the men become so smart that they can no longer converse with women. This is the point that Japan is at.

[Anonymous No.7314856]

>>7314807
>Cancer is vital for the species

[Anonymous No.7314861]

>>7313287
Yes. It keeps the engineer job market from saturating in any given ecosystem/economy.

[Anonymous No.7314864]

>>7314752
Humans are social creatures we need other people to help us survive. Raising children is also a huge burden because they are next to useless and require constant attention for their first decade or so, and then still require parental support for the next decade of their life, so having individuals that don't make children of their own, but can still help their siblings raise their children is extremely beneficial

[Anonymous No.7314894]

>>7313528
>control group that hasn't been informed of sexuality standards

Wouldn't this require keeping someone entirely in isolation? GTFO cultural marxist cuck.

[Anonymous No.7314992]

>>7314894
>nor is there reason for such

[Anonymous No.7315411]

>>7314200
>What intrinsic value is there?

Not dying. Passing your values to your children.

[Anonymous No.7315413]

>>7314217
No. Your happiness is literally a bunch of chemicals in your brain. You do things that causes the release of those chemicals.

[Anonymous No.7315426]

>>7314158
Reminds me of those lesbian seagulls on that one Nature episode. Their main island was being taken over by us and males were hard to come by, so they'd both get pregnant, but one of their eggs would be hatched and they'd take care of it. They even did all the little dances a regular couple would do.

[Anonymous No.7316001]

>>7313528
>..If the experiment would result the same in other manners, and it remain fundamental -- the only explanation for the initial development of observation is an Observer.
I don't think you understand what 'observer' means in this context

also
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.7316152]

>>7313287
>Homosexuality is population control
yes, well sort of

>in nature provides ?
no

>population control
>nature

[Anonymous No.7316158]

>>7316152
>>population control
>>nature
predators and limitation of resources

[Anonymous No.7316174]

>>7313287
How would that even work? I mean would the genes just "realise" that there were too many in the population and then start making gay offspring? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

[Anonymous No.7316199]

>>7315413
>bait.jpg

[Anonymous No.7316292]

>>7314419
My bf thinks I smell nice, I don't he smells like anything (assuming he's been to a shower). He'd maybe get it. Sounds pretty primitive to me.

[Anonymous No.7316295]

>>7314419
>>7316292
I don't think it's exactly the odor that matters, I like guys who smell warms and comfy. It's like basic instinct telling you that person is dependable.

[Anonymous No.7316298]

>>7315411
animals do not care about their genes

[Anonymous No.7316322]

>>7316001
It's the discussion of scientific observations.

There's this neat idea: trends. Observation being inherent with reality is none so developed by itself. There's no probability distribution for that which is nonexistent.

[Anonymous No.7316325]

>>7316322
what does that have to do with the double slit experiment?

[Anonymous No.7316332]

>>7316325
It's fundamental with the experiment: https://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E

@ 7:20 - "..The scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize winner and a leading physicist

They got that from this / these experiments. Thus, "if it remains fundamental with further experiments.."

"The summary of that is

1) Reality is a product of consciousness (observation)

2) Reality -- mass, particles -- exist(s) only as probability until a measurement is made"

[Anonymous No.7316352]

>>7316332
That is a misconception consciousness has nothing to do with the double slit experiment

.Looking at the particles does not collapse the wave function, that not what ''observation'' means in this context, it just' means measuring the particles that pass through each slit by interacting with them by bombarding them with em waves which collapse the wave function

[Anonymous No.7316358]

>>7316352
>Measurement isn't practically synonymous with observation
It's even proportional on probability, recording is "more permanent", reduced-ly.

PS, "by bombarding them with waves isn't accurate. The recorders being on, and not recording, is the control -- which doesn't effect the experiment. It's the actual recording that does.

[Anonymous No.7316365]

>>7313287
Probably not.

Mostly likely it's just not really practical (relative to evolutionary pressure) to evolve sexual arousal mechanisms for men that *only* fire if a vagina is present. (Especially since the system has to give rise to both male and female sexual attraction given different inputs; some leakage is probably inevitable.)

[Anonymous No.7316368]

>>7316358
>>7316352
>>7316332
forgot link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics

[Anonymous No.7316377]

>>7316358
PS, "by bombarding them with waves isn't accurate. The recorders being on, and not recording, is the control -- which doesn't effect the experiment. It's the actual recording that does.

How exactly did they 'record' the particles? Have you read any scientific papers about it?

[Anonymous No.7316399]

>>7314257
why is this being ignored

anyway, have they considered that it could be an increased amount of X hormone in the womb of the mother which makes females more fertile and feminises the males, making them more likely to be gay?

[Anonymous No.7316403]

>>7313457
have you ever even owned a dog? jesus they fuck everything

[Anonymous No.7316418]

>>7316399
Because it lists no measurement for "more fecundity".

[Anonymous No.7316433]

>>7316295
I think I kinda know what you mean, but I just don't sense the smell(s) myself, atleast not consciously.

[Anonymous No.7316533]

>>7316377
Here, though, >>7316290

[Anonymous No.7316553]

>>7313355
>would be better
that's not how evolution works, it doesn't get do overs and 'redesigns' things perfectly, evolution just builds upon the existing structure towards whatever works.

[Anonymous No.7316555]

>>7316533
that is shitty popsci journalism show me a real scientific paper about the double slit experiment

[Anonymous No.7316568]

>>7316555
Except that it's further evidence of what's already stated here.

[Anonymous No.7316572]

>>7314752
>from an evolutionary standpoint it's on par with being sterile
Homosexuals still can have kids, just not with each other.

[Anonymous No.7316586]

>>7316568
>confirmation bias
just read a text book or do some research on the details of the experiment, it has absolutely no relation to any metaphysical understandings of consciousness

[Anonymous No.7316588]

>>7316572
It is very rare case.

[Anonymous No.7316602]

>>7316295
No, that's not it at all. Back in high school, I fell pretty hard for two guys, and I kid you not, when they walked in any room I was in, I could smell them even before I saw them. And they weren't wearing some kind of special cologne. And it only happened one at a time. After i was over the first one, I couldn't smell him anymore and could only smell the second one.

That's more than just warm and comfy.

[Anonymous No.7316608]

>>7316292
>primitive
Well smell is the most base sense we have. It doesn't stop to be processed by the thalamus. It goes straight to the hippocampus. So yeah, it would be primitive... though all sexual attraction is primitive.

[Anonymous No.7316619]

>>7316586
Except that's the whole of that experiment, and that thread: re-checking the double slit experiment with particles with mass.

[Anonymous No.7316629]

>>7316588
No it fucking isn't. You do realize that before gays started becoming accepted, they weren't just celibate, right? Do you realize how many older gay men have ex wives and older lesbians have ex husbands and kids? It's not even slightly uncommon.

Moreover, surrogacy is a common means of passing on genes in the modern age, and I would argue that for human beings, child rearing is far, far more important than child bearing. Gays certainly have no decreased capacity for raising a child.

[Anonymous No.7316632]

>>7314257
>mfw I'm gay, first born, and in an extended family that's filled with straight sons and almost no daughters. I am masc, fwiw.

[Anonymous No.7316643]

>>7315413
So?
It has to originate somewhere. Chemicals are just the way it's expressed for us. In a hundred or two years it might be expressed with (more) electricity or quantum states or whatever.
Does the lack of magical moonbeams make you sad?

[Anonymous No.7316649]

>>7316632
"More likely to" doesn't mean "has to"

[Anonymous No.7316652]

>>7315413
*Tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.7316668]

>>7316649
Of course, still makes me an odd duck.

[Anonymous No.7316674]

>>7316668
I dunno. I'm also masculine, the oldest, and gay as fuck. I wouldn't even say the majority of gay guys fit those qualifications. It's just more likely for them than straight guys.

[idiotcomment No.7316757]

i don't see why OP.they can adopt

[Anonymous No.7317194]

>>7316757
Why bother with the name? Are you like a less creative Riddler?

[Anonymous No.7317244]

>>7313287

wrong

there's no reason for homosexuality to affect reproductive rates

"true" heterosexuals are about as rare as "true" homosexuals, the vast majority of the human population is bisexual to some degree. the prevalence of homosexual behavior from bisexuals is dependant on environmental factors - situation and context.

female sexuality appears to be dependant also on perceived status - essentially, non-heterosexual & non-homosexual women are attracted to the highest local status people, regardless of sex.

source: attending a women's college. as soon as the only high status individuals around are female, all the women with fluctuating sexuality are suddenly attracted to women.

it's a pain in the ass for all the actual straight and lesbian students.

all the BUGs and LUGs insist, at top volume, that they aren't BUGs/LUGs - until they graduate, enter the real world, and suddenly (because the high-status mates are all men once more) they settle down with a man and get married.

anyway, the benefit of a homosexual fraction of any population is their child rearing. see: gay swans (their adopted offspring are the best-protected and best-fed)

[Anonymous No.7317338]

>>7313287
Humans have the man to argo to fight wars and die
Humans have the women to stay and cultivate
Men have shorter lives
Therefore more boys are born because eventually they'll die first.
>What you just proclaimed, is bullshit.
Go fuck off back to be you trap fappin asshat

[Anonymous No.7317741]

>>7314856
It is you retard. A species that doesn't adapt can be wiped out by a disease.

[Anonymous No.7318344]

>>7317244
It's very impressive the amount of nothing you have to back this shit up