posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:48 PM
I know since the beginning of mankind, there are always a few oddballs. You know, the insane, the deformed, the handicapped. (rough lingo, sorry)
But watching news, and seeing my surroundings, I work in a very conservative financial institution, and yet I know, I'm surrounded by homosexuals,
out of closet and in. And who knows how many pedophiles are around me?
These are very touchy and ehem, "tough" subjects, but human are very basic sexual animals, as much as we cover it up with clothes and polite
appearances. We do it as pleasure and for need to extend human lives perpetuation.
If the theory of evolution prescribe a path of procreation, of survival, I would say, humans that participate in the acts, or only have desires and
instinct to participate with partners that does not qualify as "procreation partners" are outside of the evolutionary specimens.
If you see animals, they are the most exemplary species of evolutionary principle of survival. They live to survive, and you rarely see sexual
perversion among them.
Or are they actually the indicating specimen of where we are going next?
I will get on a very dangerous territory here of categorizing "out of the norm" sexual human types:
A. The homosexuals.
B. The bi-sexuals.
C. The pedophiles, both gay and straight types. (sex with child too young can't yield off spring)
D. The asexuals (frigid, no desires)
E. The steriles (unable to be fertile)
E. Others (use your imagination)
You might think there aren't many of these enough to significant compared to the larger normal specimen, but I think if there are an anonymous and
accurate comprehensive list, the numbers of those outside of the "norm" will surprise many people.
So the question is: Is nature, or "evolution" slowly but surely turning human into non-procreating species? Or at least not naturally able to do so
in the future.
Is it a form of "natural and genetic" population control? Is there a code hidden within human that switch part of us to be non-productive? I mean,
we are definitely NOT going the other way, which is to have men be able to carry a child, or to have women able to produce semen.
Or is this all part of a much more sinister evolutionary trajectory?