by Staff writer
Centuries ago, a British scholar named Thomas Malthus convinced English nobles that civilization had surpassed the Earth’s carrying capacity and that famine was imminent.
Since this first declaration that the world may have a limited capacity to support its growing population, there have been episodes of recurring concern that the world has approached, and, according to some estimates, far exceeded its carrying capacity.
Carrying capacity is the maximum number of organisms of a particular species that can be supported indefinitely in a given environment.
Human population, now over 7 billion, cannot continue to grow indefinitely. There are limits to the life-sustaining resources earth can provide us.
The late-18th century philosopher Thomas Malthus wrote these ominous words in an essay on what he saw as the dire future of humanity. Humans’ unquenchable urge to reproduce, Malthus argued, would ultimately lead us to overpopulate the planet, eat up all its resources and die in a mass famine.
Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people.
Our growing population, coupled with rising affluence and per capita impact, is driving our planet closer to its tipping point.
With population expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, many wonder if our natural resources can keep up with our growing demands.
However we look at it, our planet does not have the biocapacity to sustain our current levels of growth and resource consumption.
But there seems to be one natural answer to earth’s imminent breakdown: Homosexuality.
Every other day, more and more people rise up to suggest that homosexuality had evolved as a form of natural population control.
Homosexual behavior exists in every animal species and studies show that homosexual behavior peak in over populated species.
But this theory is not without its flaws: Too many of it, for that matter.
First, genes for homosexuality within a population do not necessarily cause a lower rate of reproduction.
In fact, homosexual individuals are just as fertile as their straight counterparts.
And till date no single evidence exists to prove that homosexuality is really nature’s way of controlling population.
True, some homosexual persons may prefer not to have children, but this is just the case with some heterosexual persons who don’t want kids either.
But has homosexuality ever played any role in controlling population?
Not really!
If anything, they even serve to increase population’s chances of survival by:
1. adopting the orphaned and unwanted children and
2. paying women who ordinarily may not want to procreate for surrogacy.
Also, studies have found that homosexual men make more diligent uncles than their heterosexual counterparts (and thus are better at ensuring the survival of their relatives)
The same gene that codes for homosexuality in men have also been found to make women more fertile, meaning that homosexual men could have more fertile sisters.
Presently, as it appears that nature more than favors population growth than its control, it is really left for us to do the right thing.
Making more babies when there are millions of starving ones (nearly 800 million according to current UN data) is stupid!
