(June 29, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Anima Wrote:(June 29, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:
In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point! Resources are limited, and our population is exploding. The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources. So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!
Ha ha. I like that. However, life is a numbers game and your analysis must make consideration of the impact of wars, plagues, and famines as well as the rate of re-population. I would agree with your assessment if the rate of human maturity was handled in the expanse of merely a year or two. Given the need of at least a decade if not two to reach productive and procreative utility we would be best to consider our argument to having more or less in the terms of it being easier to disgard more than it would be to acquire more. So we should encourage a surplus to be discarded at leisure rather than a shortfall which may not readily be replaced, before deficiency become irrevocable.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that if we ever have too many people we can just get rid of some of them and say that's that. But that if some anomalous event occurred that drove us to extinction, we want to make sure we have enough humans to avoid extinction? I would counter by saying that if extinction were ever a serious issue, I think the homosexuals would take one for the team and do the dirty with the other sex.