This entry fails to present any scientific evidence or references to show that the human population is now in a state of "overpopulation." Given this lack of evidence, it is impossible for there to be "denialism." Douglas Watts 02:42, 26 January 2009 (EST)
- Nowhere does the article say the human population as a whole is in a state of overpopulation at the present; indeed it points out that those in the past who have made such assertions turned out to be rash and premature. At the same time, ecological carrying capacity of any given area, with limits to growth due to scarcity of resources, is an established scientific fact. That this carrying capacity can be increased due to technological advances (such as the Green Revolution increasing food output, and the availability of various energy sources) is also established scientific fact. What the denialists seem to be denying is the fact of carrying capacity itself, not whether or not humanity as a whole is currently overpopulated. Then you have people like Pat Buchanan decrying the low birth rates in Europe and Japan as being some kind of demographic disaster - it is not - and linking it to being a natural consequence of feminism and the secularization of society - which is true, reference the demographic transition model. Localized instances of human overpopulation have undoubtedly occurred, such as the Irish potato famine, and the question of whether there is human overpopulation today would likewise appear to be limited to some localities, mostly in the less developed world; in sum it isn't a "global" problem right now. Since this is a wiki you are more than welcome to add to or edit the article. (Hmm...on the matter of denialism maybe there should also be a section on "green revolution denialism" for those who don't accept that science and technology can increase the carrying capacity...) Secret Squirrel 08:25, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Bronze these baby shoes?
This article seems really outdated
- Check this out instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
One issue I have with this article
"individuals who do not reproduce obviously cannot pass on their genes to the next generation"
That's an over-simplified view of evolution. To semi-coherently ramble at 6am in the morning with no sleep: Individuals that don't reproduce actually can pass on their genes if those genes are not the result of a mutation. How does that work? Quite simple: The genes didn't come out of thin air. They exist in the population, even if they don't express that phenotype. A population with genes possibly resulting in homosexuality would see both a decrease in children dying as a result of their parents dying, and a decrease in resource competition. These genes would get passed down. Even if it doesn't provide a benefit at the time, the genes still get passed down. Not saying that it's what happened, but it is a way for an individual's genes to get passed down without the individual reproducing, and it points out that the above statement is inaccurate. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
From the section Solution, I have removed the sentence:
- "exclusive homosexuality is a deleterious trait from the standpoint of evolution, as individuals who do not reproduce obviously cannot pass on their genes to the next generation."
Because evolution does not work only on the individual level, and a deleterious trait of an individual can be very advantageous for the species. In particular, although the causes of homosexuality are still unknown, one theory says that homosexuals may have more sisters than the average, so that, even if they do not reproduce, on the overall they are advantageous to the reproduction of the species. — Unsigned, by: McLaghing / talk / contribs 11:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)