Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greiger]

My guess is with stuff like the One Child policy the government would be happy with them.  More babies for the rest of the country.

Of course governments the world over are often crazy and don't always act in the interests of common sense.  So take my thought with a grain of salt.

[Frumple]

There's... still absolutely no reason to worry. It's not enough of the population to make a difference, even if it were (which it isn't) a completely noncontributing portion of it, population wise. Seriously, genuinely justified concern for underpopulation died entirely... a long time ago. Especially on a species level. Nowadays, major powers wise, body count just doesn't really matter to a significant degree. S'all about material and methodology, not manpower.

[kingfisher1112]

There's... still absolutely no reason to worry. It's not enough of the population to make a difference, even if it were (which it isn't) a completely noncontributing portion of it, population wise. Seriously, genuinely justified concern for underpopulation died entirely... a long time ago. Especially on a species level. Nowadays, major powers wise, body count just doesn't really matter to a significant degree. S'all about material and methodology, not manpower.

I guess worry is the wrong term. More like "potential problem 80 years down the track". Of course, what I am worried about is that society may be encouraging homosexuality.

[Nadaka]

There's... still absolutely no reason to worry. It's not enough of the population to make a difference, even if it were (which it isn't) a completely noncontributing portion of it, population wise. Seriously, genuinely justified concern for underpopulation died entirely... a long time ago. Especially on a species level. Nowadays, major powers wise, body count just doesn't really matter to a significant degree. S'all about material and methodology, not manpower.

I guess worry is the wrong term. More like "potential problem 80 years down the track". Of course, what I am worried about is that society may be encouraging homosexuality.

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in thousands of mammal and avian species. What you are seeing is not homosexuality being encouraged by society, but the artificial dis-encouragement of homosexuality by society breaking down. These species, humanity among them, have survived just fine for millions of years, and will continue to do so.

[kingfisher1112]

There's... still absolutely no reason to worry. It's not enough of the population to make a difference, even if it were (which it isn't) a completely noncontributing portion of it, population wise. Seriously, genuinely justified concern for underpopulation died entirely... a long time ago. Especially on a species level. Nowadays, major powers wise, body count just doesn't really matter to a significant degree. S'all about material and methodology, not manpower.

I guess worry is the wrong term. More like "potential problem 80 years down the track". Of course, what I am worried about is that society may be encouraging homosexuality.

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in thousands of mammal and avian species. What you are seeing is not homosexuality being encouraged by society, but the artificial dis-encouragement of homosexuality by society breaking down. These species, humanity among them, have survived just fine for millions of years, and will continue to do so.

More so than that. A large part of homosexuality is genetics, but society repressed that part until now. But, now, we may see "fake gays" or something of the sort. It was mentioned before that women like gays a bit more, and there's all the support... I could see such a thing. Fake gays/"converted" gays. That could be a problem. Then again, it all depends on how society treats it.

[XXSockXX]

So you only have a problem with open homosexuality? You sound a bit like those right wingers who are afraid they'll have to marry their dog if the US allows gay marriage...

If you know anything about demographics, you know that growing and shrinking of populations is caused by other things. Simply because ~10% of humanity has always been homosexual. That doesn't change the equation. Sometimes homosexual people have children, sometimes not, same as heterosexual people, it's as simple as that.

[Rose]

If 50% of the adult population of the world were to stop breeding for whatever reason, we would still be having to much population increase.

[GlyphGryph]

Also, I've not actually seen "being gay" to be a major hindrance among having children among those I know who are, many of whom have children. Thankfully, we live in the future, where such issues aren't terribly hard to fix (as if they ever were, but thanks to living in the future it's easier and less problematic than ever).

[10ebbor10]

There's one western country where population is actually dropping, which is Russia. Other nations would be dropping too, if not for immigration.

Though really, no reason to worry. In-vitro fertilization is a thing, will be perfected within a good 20-30 years.  Probably advanced enough for merging of 2 male cells, or 2 female ones.

And well, if the worst comes, there's such a thing as tax benefits. People like to do a lot of stuff for money.

Last, homosexuality might not be genetical. Last thing I read indicated that it might have more to do with genetical primers and tags, acquired in prenatal phases, and during the first lifeyear.

[kingfisher1112]

So you only have a problem with open homosexuality? You sound a bit like those right wingers who are afraid they'll have to marry their dog if the US allows gay marriage...

If you know anything about demographics, you know that growing and shrinking of populations is caused by other things. Simply because ~10% of humanity has always been homosexual. That doesn't change the equation. Sometimes homosexual people have children, sometimes not, same as heterosexual people, it's as simple as that.

~10% of humanity may have always been homosexual, just they were breeding before. Now they have an actual shot at having legitimate non-heterosexual relationships.

And no, I have no problem with homosexuality. Doubts, certainly, but not outright hate. Also, " Right wingers".

[Frumple]

... breeding before, breeding now, and will be breeding in the future. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily stop the urge to have and raise kids, and regardless, it's not a sufficient portion of the population to meaningfully impact the growth rate. There is literally absolutely zero legitimate population concern related to the issue of homosexuality. None, at all. Population growth just doesn't work that way.

You want an actual target for declining population growth, look to industrialization and gender equality. Those are more or less the two big causes.

[kingfisher1112]

... breeding before, breeding now, and will be breeding in the future. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily stop the urge to have and raise kids, and regardless, it's not a sufficient portion of the population to meaningfully impact the growth rate. There is literally absolutely zero legitimate population concern related to the issue of homosexuality. None, at all. Population growth just doesn't work that way.

You want an actual target for declining population growth, look to industrialization and gender equality. Those are more or less the two big causes.

...Industrialisation? Please, do elaborate.

[XXSockXX]

~10% of humanity may have always been homosexual, just they were breeding before. Now they have an actual shot at having legitimate non-heterosexual relationships.

Historically there has never been a time where everyone was breeding. There are countless reasons for this, like social status/wealth, too high male population (which is the reason China and India will lose some population down the line), infertility, infant mortality etc.
Even if homosexuals are less likely to breed in a society that does not repress them (I doubt that), heterosexual people in these societies are also breeding less, due to contraception, gender equality (women who work get children later in life, resulting in less overall children) and other reasons. On the other hand lower infant mortality can compensate for that, like it does in some western countries.
Just look at a genealogical family tree over some centuries and you'll be surprised how many people didn't breed (and likely not because they were homosexual).

[The Scout]

... breeding before, breeding now, and will be breeding in the future. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily stop the urge to have and raise kids, and regardless, it's not a sufficient portion of the population to meaningfully impact the growth rate. There is literally absolutely zero legitimate population concern related to the issue of homosexuality. None, at all. Population growth just doesn't work that way.

You want an actual target for declining population growth, look to industrialization and gender equality. Those are more or less the two big causes.

...Industrialisation? Please, do elaborate.

I believe he's referring to the lack of large farming families. Large families are less affordable in urban areas.

[Frumple]

Industrialization raises cost of kids (necessary training to operate within, etc.) --> Kids cost more to raise --> People have less kids. As societies industrialize and go post-industrial, population growth drops. S'been a hugely blatant pattern.

E: Scout ninja includes part of the etc., heh.