NationStates Jolt Archive

If the human race were to undergo some horrendous tragedy and over 6.2 billion people were killed, leaving only about 1-2 million people left., would you have sex with a member of the opposite sex and bear children so that you could help restore the human race?

(not permamently, but until you and/or your partner bear a child)

The planet is overpopulated, have you considered "being gay" for a while?

The planet is overpopulated, have you considered "being gay" for a while?

Thats not the question.

If you want to ask the question, ask it on a different thread :p.

Err....

Why would they spontaneously become straight?

I *might* see having children, but you don't need to be straight to do it...
...and repopulating the world might not be the best idea anyhow. It's rather overpopulated at the moment anyhow.

The planet is overpopulated, have you considered "being gay" for a while?

Heh, I am doing my part by using birth control. Good answer to the posting though.

No. I find the idea of sex with someone of the opposite sex absolutely repulsive.

Err....

Why would they spontaneously become straight?

I *might* see having children, but you don't need to be straight to do it...
...and repopulating the world might not be the best idea anyhow. It's rather overpopulated at the moment anyhow.

Yeah, but we'll colonizing other spacial bodies by the second half of the century so that won't be a problem for long.

Also, if we don't restore the human race to a healthy population, all of what we have achieved may be destroyed. Restoring it to, say, 1 or 2 billion would be good.

No. I find the idea of sex with someone of the opposite sex absolutely repulsive.

Ahhh well. Looks like the human race is dooooomed.

*cries for the human race because The Mindset wouldn't have children, thus leading to human extinction...*

Oh, and you guys do realize that I am insane and the moment, so this thread doesn't make sense for a reason.

I would, but I'm not homosexual... I'm just one of those unimportant kids from the bisexual crowd. ;)

I hate kids too.

This exact topic was explored quite expertly in the Suzy McKee Charnas novels: "Walk to the End of the World", "Motherlines" and 2 more sequels (whose titles escape me now).

I'm not a lesbian, but I think half a billion people is plenty. I would therefore see no need for homosexuals to procreate.

The planet is overpopulated, have you considered "being gay" for a while?
i cracked up when i read that! *stands up and applaudes"

So we're assuming that all the straight men or all the straight women die in this senario?

Let me change the number of people left...

So we're assuming that all the straight men or all the straight women die in this senario?

No.

But now that I think about it, most gay people will be dead. Seeing how a lot of gay people live in the city (I'm not saying all, just most) and probably the cities will be the worst hit...

is absolute rubbish.

"most gays live in the cities". excuse me?

don't forget, one out of every 10 humans is gay, lesbian, or bisexual - that applies to everywhere, including outside cities (you must be a city-dweller right? thank god i'm a country boy.) and 1 out of every 10 humans will still be gay, lesbian or bisexual in the future.

that means there would be slightly more than enough (around 4/10) heterosexual men to continue procreating (given a continued balance in the split between the sexes). problem solved.

the entire premise is irrational anyway, as it pre-supposes that gay men/women could or would overcome their "gay ways" if given the choice, or faced with it. my gay body says never in a hundred milennia :)

To the people who say that the population should be reduced... how would you plan on doing this? I mean, you can't stop people from having sex... and not too many people will take kindly to having any special "operations"... It brings me chills just to think of it... *Shudders*

is absolute rubbish.

"most gays live in the cities". excuse me?

don't forget, one out of every 10 humans is gay, lesbian, or bisexual - that applies to everywhere, including outside cities (you must be a city-dweller right? thank god i'm a country boy.) and 1 out of every 10 humans will still be gay, lesbian or bisexual in the future.

that means there would be slightly more than enough (around 4/10) heterosexual men to continue procreating (given a continued balance in the split between the sexes). problem solved.

the entire premise is irrational anyway, as it pre-supposes that gay men/women could or would overcome their "gay ways" if given the choice, or faced with it. my gay body says never in a hundred milennia :)

Most openly gay people live in cities.

If you haven't noticed, a large majority of the worlds population live in areas where if you are gay you are banished from the family, etc. In our good-ole western nation every is free to be gay. However, tell that to Muhammed Ackbar in the jungles of Bangladesh.

Anyhoo, you don't have to overcome your "gay ways". Just impregnate some lady. Just one night(or possibly two...but not many). You could be reading the paper or something.

If the human race were to undergo some horrendous tragedy and over 6.2 billion people were killed, leaving only about 1-2 million people left., would you have sex with a member of the opposite sex and bear children so that you could help restore the human race?

(not permamently, but until you and/or your partner bear a child)

This is idiotic.

Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.

Moreover, your little scenario is flawed.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?

I think the population needs to be reduced drastically, to between half a million and two milion individuals. This does not have to be violent at all, just stop the birthrate for perhaps one generation. And then have a very selective process of keeping the population under control. I believe it could easily be attained.

I am heterosexual, but would not reproduce to "repopulate" the planet even if I were the only male in a sea of beautiful women and we had no birth control. I never want to produce offspring, regardless of circumstance.

Sorry for the mini-hijack.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?

And the winner is...The Cat-Tribe.

They could still repopulate the planet without a single gay person having to have sex with a member of the opposite sex.

The planet is overpopulated, have you considered "being gay" for a while?

This is idiotic.

Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.

Moreover, your little scenario is flawed.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?


hmmm. I'm not sure which one of those replies was better. You both win.

I think the population needs to be reduced drastically, to between half a million and two milion individuals. This does not have to be violent at all, just stop the birthrate for perhaps one generation. And then have a very selective process of keeping the population under control. I believe it could easily be attained.

I am heterosexual, but would not reproduce to "repopulate" the planet even if I were the only male in a sea of beautiful women and we had no birth control. I never want to produce offspring, regardless of circumstance.

Who is to decide who lives and who dies... Okay You 4 billion... we think you're not the best of what society offers, buh-bye.

Believe me, we don't want you to spread your genes. I think your celibacy will earn you a Darwin. The sea of beautiful women I bet will agree.

Who is to decide who lives and who dies... Okay You 4 billion... we think you're not the best of what society offers, buh-bye.

Believe me, we don't want you to spread your genes. I think your celibacy will earn you a Darwin. The sea of beautiful women I bet will agree.

Your illiteracy is astounding. You are quite possibly the stupidest person I have ever come into contact with.

What part of NOT HAVING CHILDREN is deciding who lives and who dies? Where did I say we would have to euthenise or murder ANYONE? Just let them die naturally without having children.

Okay, don't get your knickers in a twist. Making fun of my illiteracy is a low blow, by the way. It's the system's fault I can't read. By "reduce" i thought you were implying "reducing" the population instantly, rather than letting those living slowly dying off.

My rebutle? Who's to decide who can and can't have children? Your genes will not produce the best of what society can offer, have a condom.

Okay, don't get your knickers in a twist. Making fun of my illiteracy is a low blow, by the way. It's the system's fault I can't read. By "reduce" i thought you were implying "reducing" the population instantly, rather than letting those living slowly dying off.

My rebutle? Who's to decide who can and can't have children? Your genes will not produce the best of what society can offer, have a condom.

Again, you missed the point. He said that no one would be able to have children. Your rebuttal is void. There wouldn't be any choosing of who could or couldn't do anything. Nobody could have children for a certain period of time.

is absolute rubbish.

"most gays live in the cities". excuse me?

don't forget, one out of every 10 humans is gay, lesbian, or bisexual - that applies to everywhere, including outside cities (you must be a city-dweller right? thank god i'm a country boy.) and 1 out of every 10 humans will still be gay, lesbian or bisexual in the future.

that means there would be slightly more than enough (around 4/10) heterosexual men to continue procreating (given a continued balance in the split between the sexes). problem solved.

the entire premise is irrational anyway, as it pre-supposes that gay men/women could or would overcome their "gay ways" if given the choice, or faced with it. my gay body says never in a hundred milennia :)
Actually, the number is 2 to 3 percent, not one out of ten. Kinsey was a fraud.

Who ever said it is correct, because it is likely if we go by probability and statistics, that in this " situation " that not a single homosexual would need to procreate, as we'd likely be an extreme minority in such a culling event.

* I am of course assuming that an event such as O.M.F.G. Class Near Global Human Genocide Event would reduce our technical capacity to that of the iron age, thus giving our operational ability and required infrastructure with and thus chances at actually using in-vitro and artificial insemination techniques a good kick to the groin ...

Also, what is it with folks using public polls now ? I get the distinct feeling that now people don't actually care what it is we think, but who is thinking what.

And might I add : I suggest as one player to another that you all chill the fuck out and don't flame each other, please ?

Okay, don't get your knickers in a twist. Making fun of my illiteracy is a low blow, by the way. It's the system's fault I can't read. By "reduce" i thought you were implying "reducing" the population instantly, rather than letting those living slowly dying off.

My rebutle? Who's to decide who can and can't have children? Your genes will not produce the best of what society can offer, have a condom.

Edit: The guy reading for me completely skipped a sentence. Don't worry, Jeeves HAS recieved his beating. I don't see how Jeeves skipping over a sentence qualifies me as the stupidest person you've come in contact with. You must not have come into contact with very many people. I etract my statement about you being a member of the church of EUthenasia, but I honestly thought that.

This does not have to be violent at all, just stop the birthrate for perhaps one generation.

And what happens when there is no one born for a generation.

Eh, i'm just an asshole. Sorry about that. But i'll expand on my idea a little further...

It wouldn't be dependant on race, economic class, or religion. It would be based on health and wellness. I'm sure we could devise a very reliable method of temporary sterilization, to be easily remanded. The people allowed to reproduce would be genetically the best we could offer, and thus have the best lives we could offer them.

I see that as a culture much more promotive of life than having as many children as possible. A culture where every child born is wanted, loved, cared for, almost never sick not because of their sanitation, but because of their immune system. A culture where no child is born that will suffer needlessly. No child will have cancer, horrible disease, or even macular degeneration. That is something I see as posible, and infinitely prefferable, than forcing women to be the ground that babies are born from, born into a meaninglessly trivial and suffering existence where they are unwanted and unloved, poor and sick.

But it will probably never happen.

Meh, I'm an asshole too. I very pretenious one at that. I also tned to skim over stuff.

My argument is:

How do we determine who is the best? It really is too subjective as humans range widely in qualities, both good and bad. It's impossible to remove diseases like cancer and mac degen permanately. Kids sometimes play games where they stare into the sun, that's why my grandma has mac degen. She'd win at those games. Cancer is increased by the amount of changes a region of the body recieves. You'd really have to prevent smoking, sun bathing, and the eating of spicy foods. Also cancer sometimes just happens. Yes, genetics do play a role, but there are other factors involved.

on no... only 2 million people are left! The gays are our only chance to save the human race from extinction.


Other than finding that extreemly silly. Why the hell shoudl the human race be repopulated? Why should they be saved at all?

The Earth is better off without them. I'm happy to see them go in this scenario although a bit disheartnened that there are 2 million left to give them at chance :(

I think you're missing the point. Riptide, get the lethal injection. I found one who doesn't wualify for your Utopia!

on no... only 2 million people are left! The gays are our only chance to save the human race from extinction.


Other than finding that extreemly silly. Why the hell shoudl the human race be repopulated? Why should they be saved at all?

The Earth is better off without them. I'm happy to see them go in this scenario although a bit disheartnened that there are 2 million left to give them at chance :(

Hey, at one point our population was at 10,000 after some cataclysmic event(that has been proven by archaeology, etc). I think the gay people pulled together to save us then.

And what do you mean the Earth is better off without us? All we need to do is be more in-twined with nature. Either that or leave Earth.

Actually, If the event happens far enough in the future, we could clone ourselves back to size...

A free shot at wiping out the human race? Wow.

But really, you don't need to have sex to get children.

This is idiotic.

Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.

Moreover, your little scenario is flawed.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?

Hmmmmm. Do you think that all these giant machines will survive through some cataclysmic event that nearly destroys civilization itself?

And my scenario is perfectly possible! We nearly nuked ourselves to death before, by golly we can finish the job this time!

And have I mentioned that the caffeine has seized my body by now???


Mmmmmm.....coffffffeeeeee.....

And it was a random scenario! It's not like i am being serious here!

Learn to live a little, jeez.

If we were intune with nature, we would actually benefit the earth! Lighting star, drive a car? Sometimes? Yes? No? Use Paper? Throw something away? Use plastic bags? YOU ARE A FLAMING TREE MURDERER AND THE TREES WILL RISE UP AND GET YOU, SO HELP ME, EVEN IF I HAVE TO HELP IT ALONG!

Riptide, another needle if you please...

And it was a random scenario! It's not like i am being serious here!

Learn to live a little, jeez.

Perhaps you can try to engage your brain sufficiently to come up with "random" scenarios that are not offensive and prejudiced.

I love a good joke - this wasn't one.

Perhaps you can try to engage your brain sufficiently to come up with "random" scenarios that are not offensive and prejudiced.

I love a good joke - this wasn't one.

How is this offensive and prejudicial? I was asking what would you do if this happened?

Of course, everyone assumes I'm so prejudicial, white supremicist, bible belt, white, red-neck because I talked about Homosexuality and the end of the world in the same thread. And you talk about under-standing. BAH!

I bet if a made a thread "Christians: What would you do if you had to breed with people of another religion?" thread no one would say I'm "prejudicial". Just because you have a different sexual preference than me doesn't make you special. We are all equal, god dammit! Don't you say I'm prejudicial.

Equal under God? Whose God?

Where's Riptide and my needle!?

Equal under God? Whose God?

Where's Riptide and my needle!?

I've got some black coffee.

It's not as good as a needle(although I would never know...), but I guess it will get you fixed for the time being.

Don't worry, It's not de-caff. I even added alot of extra sugar to give it that whooooooompf.

The planet is overpopulated, have you considered "being gay" for a while?
True, although that didn't answer the question, it makes a good point.

Coffee tends to make me "pissy" and now that I'm pumped with caffeine I want to lethally inject you more than ever. I think Riptide might've already injected himself though... I guess not passing on his genes was merely a stepping stone; he really is a member of the church of Euthenasia.

Soon only I will be left.

I haven't seen this much BS since the time I feed some cows exlax.

1) You only need like, what, 2,000 people to keep from dangerous inbreeding?

2) Does this brave new world lack turkey basters?

I could probably will myself into doing it with a woman - if mankind depended on it. But since this is not the case, I am glad I won't have to.

A better question:

Would straight men care enough about the world if they had to seduce gay guys in to giving up their own genetic material?

(Pure hypothetical, don't bother with a scenario)

being Bisexual this would be somewhat easy for me but still i agree with other people that it is a weird senerio that you have set up here since the number of people that you have allowed to live would be more than enough to repopulate the human race.


A better question:

Would straight men care enough about the world if they had to seduce gay guys in to giving up their own genetic material?

(Pure hypothetical, don't bother with a scenario)

Now that is a good question lol

A better question:

Would straight men care enough about the world if they had to seduce gay guys in to giving up their own genetic material?

(Pure hypothetical, don't bother with a scenario)* Has this insane mental image of Steve Erwin with following audio feed :

" Awww, Crickey ! I've lured this here wild homosexual male with my pants down about ma' knees, as I bend over this here kitchen-counter, now, as he goes to mount me my wife Terri here is gonna slip under him so she's here between us, and see if we can't get him to " fall for " Terri instead, ... Awwwww, Crickey ! I don't think Terri moved fast enough, o_O "

* Has this insane mental image of Steve Erwin with following audio feed :

" Awww, Crickey ! I've lured this here wild homosexual male with my pants down about ma' knees, as I bend over this here kitchen-counter, now, as he goes to mount me my wife Terri here is gonna slip under him so she's here between us, and see if we can't get him to " fall for " Terri instead, ... Awwwww, Crickey ! I don't think Terri moved fast enough, o_O "

ROFL :D

And about the topic, I doubt it would be necessary for gays to help restore the population, considering the fact that the percentage of people that are gay wouldn't be very significant in the "restoration" process. I myself (gay) could have sex with a female if I was in love with her. Sex with guys is much more enjoyable, though. ;)

Given how many people are in the world right now, however, I wouldn't conceive a child even if I was straight. Not when there are so many children needing adoption in the world.

Hey, at one point our population was at 10,000 after some cataclysmic event(that has been proven by archaeology, etc). I think the gay people pulled together to save us then.


helphelp, I can't stop laughing...it hurts...praise the gay people!

This is idiotic.

Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.

Moreover, your little scenario is flawed.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?


how so? why complicate the issue with IVF etc when having sex would be considerably easier, I consider my self to be 50% hetro and 50% Asexual I dont find straight or gay sex to be "disgusting" I think that a gay person who finds straight sex disgusting is just as in the wrong as a straight person who thinks gay sex is disgusting. for the sake of the future of the species any right thinking person regardless of sexuality would contribute whatever their body had to offer .

This is idiotic.

Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.

Moreover, your little scenario is flawed.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?
I don't think that any of those 1 or 2 million people left would know how to do artificial insemination or vitro fertilization.

If the human race were to undergo some horrendous tragedy and over 6.2 billion people were killed, leaving only about 1-2 million people left., would you have sex with a member of the opposite sex and bear children so that you could help restore the human race?

(not permamently, but until you and/or your partner bear a child)
i wouldn't want to have a child no matter what, but i would probably be willing to do so with my (hetero) partner if such a catastrophe occured. probably. well, maybe. if he got me really drunk first.

I don't think that any of those 1 or 2 million people left would know how to do artificial insemination or vitro fertilization.
ever hear of the turkey-baster approach? it would not be necessary for two people to have sex in order for them to conceive, and the technology required isn't very advanced.

ever hear of the turkey-baster approach? it would not be necessary for two people to have sex in order for them to conceive, and the technology required isn't very advanced.
Turkey-baster? No, but I can guess what's like. I know high-tech is not needed but would those 1 to 2 million people know about turkey-baster? I guess it depends on who the survisors are.

Anyway I don't understand why there would be a problem in the first place. There are still heteroes around. And I don't think that it would be very tragedic if human population would cease to exist.

Turkey-baster? No, but I can guess what's like. I know high-tech is not needed but would those 1 to 2 million people know about turkey-baster? I guess it depends on who the survisors are.

um, it's a pretty easy concept. most people know that babies are made by sperm going inside a lady's special area, and i'm sure most of them can figure out that a penis does not have to be the direct delivery mechanism.


Anyway I don't understand why there would be a problem in the first place. There are still heteroes around.

quite. and heteros haven't had any problem overpopulating the world this time around, so i don't see any problem with them doing so again.


And I don't think that it would be very tragedic if human population would cease to exist.
i can't agree with that, but to each his own.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?
aww... I wanted to say that.

i wouldn't want to have a child no matter what, but i would probably be willing to do so with my (hetero) partner if such a catastrophe occured. probably. well, maybe. if he got me really drunk first.


Funny, I would think you would want to be drunk for the end of that event, not the beginning. :-)

Actually, the number is 2 to 3 percent, not one out of ten. Kinsey was a fraud.

Considering that men and women define sexuality differently, I'd assume the numbers were actually much higher.

I can only think of three females in my circle of friends, aquaintences, family who haven't considered having a relationship with a woman even only as a hypothetical... and those three people are all related.

Do you have some stats to back up your actually?

I don't think that any of those 1 or 2 million people left would know how to do artificial insemination or vitro fertilization.

Then given the genetic material on the planet, one really would have to wonder if that population is worth saving...

Then given the genetic material on the planet, one really would have to wonder if that population is worth saving...
And as stated before, I don't think it would be.

Then given the genetic material on the planet, one really would have to wonder if that population is worth saving...

Really now? And I suppose all of your ancestors back to the stone age have been fully capable of modern medicine techniques?

To the people who say that the population should be reduced... how would you plan on doing this? I mean, you can't stop people from having sex... and not too many people will take kindly to having any special "operations"... It brings me chills just to think of it... *Shudders*
Eugenics. (Not a supporter of this theory, just thought you'd like to know)

It's only the Third World that's overpopulated. Ethopia's population has doubled since the famine in the 1980s...... thats going to be problematic.

I plan on having children anyway, without any catastrophe "forcing" me to.

Not by having sex with a woman, though.

im heterosexual and if the only way to have children was to have sex with another woman id do it. its funny really, my religion teaches homosexualtiy is wrong, but I woundnt mind having sex with another woman to repopulate the earth. :fluffle:

im heterosexual and if the only way to have children was to have sex with another woman id do it. its funny really, my religion teaches homosexualtiy is wrong, but I woundnt mind having sex with another woman to repopulate the earth. :fluffle:

Religion useless? You don't say.

This is idiotic.

Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.

Moreover, your little scenario is flawed.

Ever heard of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.?

YEAH
we wouldnt want the poor dears to have to do anything....unnatural

this is why god made baggies after all

the most important factor in bringing back the population is the number of fertile females willing to bear children after the cataclysm. gay or straight.

Your illiteracy is astounding. You are quite possibly the stupidest person I have ever come into contact with.
Riptide Monzarc, knock off the personal attacks, NOW. You don't need to make personal attacks to run down an argument, or if you do, you don't have much of a counter-argument to put up.

Would it be possible for anyone to discuss the topic of homosexuality without al the flaming, please? Every time you do, one of us Mods has to drop by and slap your little wrists for being naughty, and there is a sameness to the response. Wouldn't it be nice if for just freakin' once we could have a thread on this topic without it? Let's try, shall we?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Oh, and you guys do realize that I am insane and the moment, so this thread doesn't make sense for a reason.
Go the crazy kids!