Will humanity devolve to wearing nothing at all again and will the rise of homosexuality cause human

[Woden]

Two is a pretty awful birth rate?

Considering the two is mostly made up of this, it's not good at all.

For a start, that is three. If you can't count that high, nothing else you say is going to be meaningful to be honest.

2 is perfect, no growth, no decline. There will always be a large, poor underclass, the very nature of capitalist sociaty relies on it.

 

[PMKeates]

2 is perfect, no growth, no decline. There will always be a large, poor underclass, the very nature of capitalist sociaty relies on it.

The problem is that the poor underclass are growing faster supported by the wealthy, and immigration isn't helping. Eventually we'll just have a sort of 'Inner Party' elite, with everyone else as a virtual slave.

For a start, that is three. If you can't count that high, nothing else you say is going to be meaningful to be honest.

Knowing the sort of reprobates that live in houses like that, one of them is probably stolen from another woman, therefore it's still two.

 

[413x]

Depends how long we get benefits for kids for yes I'm bitter lol

I don't think there is a rise in homosexuality, more that it is acceptable to be open. This is obviously a good thing

 

[PMKeates]

What about an inverse income support rule for children? If you are rich, you get paid to have children. If you are poor, you get nothing.

Thoughts?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Yes, but the fact that the vast majority of gay couples never have children remains.Low birth rates are contributed to by homosexuals not being 'forced' by societal pressures to have families. Having the majority of our children spawning from the loins of the poor and uneducated is also not helping our nation grow. Eventually we'll all be either gay or poor, and civilisation will be crumble.

It's a possibility but it seems like a rather large extrapolation based on limited evidence. You've probably heard the point before but at the time of Elvis' death in 1957 there were 170 Elvis impersonators, by the year 2000 there were approximately 85,000 Elvis impersonators, if we extrapolate from that rate of growth then sometime around 2019 there will be approximately 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators or to put it another way around 1/3 of the World's population will be impersonating him.

What about an inverse income support rule for children? If you are rich, you get paid to have children. If you are poor, you get nothing.

Thoughts?

Are the children of the rich more worthwhile? Or to change the question slightly - why are the children of the poor not worth supporting? Is there some inherent value to children from rich parents that is not present in children from poor parents?

It sounds like a perverse incentive for the wealthy there - if your point is to save money then you could simply remove all support for parents, if it is that somehow children from rich parents are more valuable then that system might work.

 

[PMKeates]

It's a possibility but it seems like a rather large extrapolation based on limited evidence. You've probably heard the point before but at the time of Elvis' death in 1957 there were 170 Elvis impersonators, by the year 2000 there were approximately 85,000 Elvis impersonators, if we extrapolate from that rate of growth then sometime around 2019 there will be approximately 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators or to put it another way around 1/3 of the World's population will be impersonating him.

There is a difference between Elvis and homosexuality, in that homosexuality probably doesn't have any event that suddenly booms it's actual prevalence. Your analogy would work if for thousands of years before the birth of Elvis there were Elvis impersonators living in secret, and much before that time Elvis impersonators were a normal and accepted part of society. If we take the rate of homosexuality to be X, then for years the impact on birth rates in society was not the full X, it was a ratio of X. With time it will probably be near the full X (I think most gay couples will not have children by whatever means may be available).

Are the children of the rich more worthwhile? Or to change the question slightly - why are the children of the poor not worth supporting? Is there some inherent value to children from rich parents that is not present in children from poor parents?

It sounds like a perverse incentive for the wealthy there - if your point is to save money then you could simply remove all support for parents, if it is that somehow children from rich parents are more valuable then that system might work.

The point would be to limit procreation among those least likely to produce educated and well-rounded net contributors to society, and encourage it among those most likely.

 

[semi-pro waster]

There is a difference between Elvis and homosexuality, in that homosexuality probably doesn't have any event that suddenly booms it's actual prevalence. Your analogy would work if for thousands of years before the birth of Elvis there were Elvis impersonators living in secret, and much before that time Elvis impersonators were a normal and accepted part of society. If we take the rate of homosexuality to be X, then for years the impact on birth rates in society was not the full X, it was a ratio of X. With time it will probably be near the full X (I think most gay couples will not have children by whatever means may be available).

Your point that I took issue with seemed to be assuming that there's not a base rate with regression to the mean if it were a simple dichotomy between those two choices (and what about poor gay people?). I suppose for the discussion to go much further we'd need to know how much of an impact on population growth the amount of homosexuals forced into having children had.

The analogy isn't to suggest that there is a boom in homosexuality sparked by anything, it's to point out that extrapolation can be somewhat dubious, especially when taken to extremes.

The point would be to limit procreation among those least likely to produce educated and well-rounded net contributors to society, and encourage it among those most likely.

So in effect you are valuing children from rich parents more than those from poor(er) parents. It's an opinion certainly but not one that I'm comfortable with, to begin from the premise that a persons socio-economic background is a measure of them as a person seems a shade worrying to me.

 

[PMKeates]

So in effect you are valuing children from rich parents more than those from poor(er) parents. It's an opinion certainly but not one that I'm comfortable with, to begin from the premise that a persons socio-economic background is a measure of them as a person seems a shade worrying to me.

It's not a measure of the poor individuals as people, just an attempt to disincentivise poor people having children and incentivise wealthier people.

It takes a lot of investment to raise a child in to a productive contributing adult. Trying to do that starting from abject disadvantage is, in many cases, a lost cause. We may be better off focusing our efforts where there is a greater chance, and one way to 'filter' here is to start with those with wealthier parents. They will likely have more stability, better nutrition, better access to education, greater exposure to culture, travel etc. If we put resources in to encouraging these people to raise more children, we may get better results than providing child support to those who are very poor, only for them to mostly produce similarly disadvantaged children.

 

[PooBrain]

Global warming!

 

[Tefal]

These days, heterosexuality is being phased out as a necessity of life and homosexuality is being influx as a choice of life. Gone are the days when adolescents having their first sexual attractions initially tried to like girls, and only turned gay if it didn't work. Now it's a choice and they're both normal, a kid growing up will think "ah I remember that guy saying liking boys is normal" and will initially start having homosex with his buddies rather than even trying to get a girlfriend for heterosex.

So asim you're saying the only reason you don't find men sexualy attractive is because you either choose not to or you were told it was wrong when you were young?

 

[doiks14]

It's not a measure of the poor individuals as people, just an attempt to disincentivise poor people having children and incentivise wealthier people.

It takes a lot of investment to raise a child in to a productive contributing adult. Trying to do that starting from abject disadvantage is, in many cases, a lost cause. We may be better off focusing our efforts where there is a greater chance, and one way to 'filter' here is to start with those with wealthier parents. They will likely have more stability, better nutrition, better access to education, greater exposure to culture, travel etc. If we put resources in to encouraging these people to raise more children, we may get better results than providing child support to those who are very poor, only for them to mostly produce similarly disadvantaged children.

But probably won't work as this is not how economy works, if everyone in the country were high skilled workers i.e. programmers, designers, architects, engineers, managers etc. then who will be the chavy guy in his late 20's working in McD serving me my fries?

 

[Jason2]

We were warned that the end days would be unlike anything ever seen before. People are no longer ashamed of their shameful deeds. Once upon a time, people cared for what their fellow man thought of them. That can be no longer said.

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.

 

[Jason2]

It's a possibility but it seems like a rather large extrapolation based on limited evidence. You've probably heard the point before but at the time of Elvis' death in 1957 there were 170 Elvis impersonators, by the year 2000 there were approximately 85,000 Elvis impersonators, if we extrapolate from that rate of growth then sometime around 2019 there will be approximately 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators or to put it another way around 1/3 of the World's population will be impersonating him.



Are the children of the rich more worthwhile? Or to change the question slightly - why are the children of the poor not worth supporting? Is there some inherent value to children from rich parents that is not present in children from poor parents?

It sounds like a perverse incentive for the wealthy there - if your point is to save money then you could simply remove all support for parents, if it is that somehow children from rich parents are more valuable then that system might work.

1957? Don't you mean 1977?

 

[Tefal]

We were warned that the end days would be unlike anything ever seen before. People are no longer ashamed of their shameful deeds. Once upon a time, people cared for what their fellow man thought of them. That can be no longer said.

when was this once upon a time?

 

[Angilion]

I'm boggled enough to reply.

Sexual promiscuity is at an all time high. With the rise in popular media (cheaper TVs, cheaper internet, cheaper computers, phones, tablets, etc.) the world is being fed tonnes of sex propaganda.

Is sexual promiscuity at an all time high or has the rise in the use of media that you refer to resulted in publicitiy of sexual promiscuity being at an all time high?

Boys and girls are becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages.

Rubbish. There's a lot of precedent throughout history. It wasn't much over 100 years ago that the age of consent in the UK was raised to 16. It used to be legal to marry at 12 and that wasn't an oddity of this country. Whether it's right is a different matter, but it's very obviously not unprecedented.

Lets face it, you rarely, if ever, see "celebrity idols" fully or decently clothed these days.

For example (among many), on several occasions I have witnessed girls who I thought had completely forgotten to wear a skirt over their tights (these weren't jeggings).

Clothing standards have frequently been changed by some people pushing the limits of what is allowed. There isn't any objective standard of restraint. It's all subjective. For example, in later republican and imperial Rome it would have been shocking for a woman to wear a toga. The only women who wore togas were prostitutes.

Now this is where Justin Bieber comes in. These young girls are growing up believing Justin Bieber is a man.

Which he is. Well, I assume he is. I suppose it's possible that there's a bizarre conspiracy and they're actually a woman in disguise...but why would that happen? If a media company wanted an androgynous male youth as a marketing device (as they obviously did) then it would be far easier for them to hire an androgynous male youth rather than hire a woman and maintain a conspiracy.

When they become sexually active, the age of which is also getting younger and younger, they will naturally limit themselves to skinny-jeans wearing borderline homosexuals. Gone will be the days when women were attracted to manly-men.

So you're talking about gender, not sex, and you just don't understand the difference between sex and gender and you might not understand that sexual orientation is something different too.

There are issues regarding changes in sexism and the resulting changes in gender and how that has stigmatised both masculinity and maleness, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

This brings me onto the topic of homosexuality. (I stress that I'm not judging homosexuality in any way, merely discussing the evolutionary impact of increasing homosexuality.)
The media is full of homosexuality. Gok Wan, Alan Carr, David Walliams et al, are filling the media with gayness. These days, heterosexuality is being phased out as a necessity of life and homosexuality is being influx as a choice of life. Gone are the days when adolescents having their first sexual attractions initially tried to like girls, and only turned gay if it didn't work. Now it's a choice and they're both normal, a kid growing up will think "ah I remember that guy saying liking boys is normal" and will initially start having homosex with his buddies rather than even trying to get a girlfriend for heterosex.

I'm not saying decent women and straight men will be wiped out in a months time; I'm simply predicting that they will become scarce, like ancient tribes are today, in 100 to 5,000 years time.

Eh?

An increase in the number of neutral references to homosexuality in the media isn't an increase in the proportion of people who are homosexual.

A reduction in the proportion of homosexual people who initially try heterosexuality in order to conform isn't an increase in the proportion of people who are homosexual.

Even if there has been an increase in homosexuality in humanity (and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there has been), it would still be...not supported by evidence and reasoning...to conclude that a very large majority of men will be homosexual in the relatively near future.

You also seem to have somehow managed to overlook the fact that about 50% of adolescents are female.

 

[Nitefly]

Homosexuality is an artefact of the selection for sexual fitness.

Pow! Take that, haters.

 

[gillywibble]

This thread is both interesting and informative. In addition, I never thought I would quote the following:

There is a difference between Elvis and homosexuality.

Please have five stars

 

[dowie]

We were warned that the end days would be unlike anything ever seen before. People are no longer ashamed of their shameful deeds. Once upon a time, people cared for what their fellow man thought of them. That can be no longer said.

LOL you're trying too hard to troll at the moment

 

[Cleeecooo]

Once upon a time, people cared for what their fellow man thought of them. That can be no longer said.

One would presume it may be because their fellow man may often quote crap from a work of fiction on matters which really aren't pertinent and have no comparison points to the society at the time of the writing of the aforementioned work of fiction

As for homosexuality wiping us out, I very much doubt it'll happen. If it really did become such a big problem, we could have couples of 4. 2 gays guys, 2 lesbian women. It'll be one big, happy (obviously sinful ) family!

 

[RageQuit©]

But..David Walliams isn't gay? His wife:



The monster! He'll be the downfall of us all!!!