Hacker News Reader

Comment by hutzlibu | Hacker News Reader

So do you believe gay people for example, are a threat to a healthy and balanced society?

edit:

Oh and conservative culture in my land means mostly lots of alcohol. The first time I vomitted from alcohol was as a teenager on a catholic wine fest, by wine gifted to us from the church. There might be conservatives, that are free from drugs, but mostly they just like other drugs. Drugs are a big problem in todays society, but conservatives as a whole are not a prime example if living sober. Puritans might be, but they are a subclass of "conservatives".

View on HN

I think a lot of anti-gay thoughts today are more anti gay culture, such as many of the things people do and display in the pride parade that has nothing to do with liking people of the same sex.

So... by that argument isn't "gay culture" actually counter-cultural? As in it goes against the mainstream opinions held by a fairly conservative society?

Oh, that makes sense. I have other gay friends that express the same concern privately. In my country (no gay rights yet; it just got decriminalised) I tend to say that "the best gay pride protest is no gay pride protest", because if we have equal rights, there's no need to protest, and we just want equal rights.

Well, it's a simple equation from a societal health perspective.

As things are currently, society is well below the minimum and ideal birth replacement rates (scarily low in fact). So from that perspective, promotion of homosexuality runs directly counter to what is best for society as a whole versus what is currently seen as best for any one individual.

It is a bit telling, that you perceive it as "promoting of homosexuality". I am not gay and I don't see anything like it. What I see, is promoting of a idea, that people are free to live their (consented) sexuality, whatever that might be, instead of forcing them to live an unhappy life not fitting to them. That is not really good, if you want stable people. And without stable people you won't have a stable society.

And about birth rates in general, that is a way longer debate. I would start with world population and limited ressources, but rather leave it at that.

> society is well below the minimum and ideal birth replacement rates (scarily low in fact).

   The global human population reached 8.0 billion in mid-November 2022 from an estimated 2.5 billion people in 1950,

Your opinion and the actual growth rates do not seem to be in agreement.

> Your opinion and the actual growth rates do not seem to be in agreement.

Believe me or not, it makes no difference to me. I know I'm right.

Even the resident HN golden boy Elon Musk has been very outspoken recently about his significant concerns regarding the forthcoming population collapse. So it's happening whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Human society survived just fine with one quarter the current population 70 years ago. Why can't it survive with that again? Especially now that we have better technology that makes each human much more productive? Unless you can only look at the world through the lens of capitalism (which requires infinite growth)... but capitalism is definitely not required for humanity in general (human society existed before capitalism and will continue to exist after it).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com