Could civilization survive if all straight people disappeared overnight? A conservative estimate of 5% (gay + bi) would leave the world with 350 000 000 people.
>>5855850
I'd think people would manage as long as bi's are around to reproduce.
The world would be a wreck though because the population would be too spread out.
>>5855850
You'd expect to see population declining sharply from the original 350 million in the decades following the initial event, as a population composed exclusively of gays and bisexuals is not likely to reproduce much. However, assuming the initial event was just all straight people magically disappearing (rather than some sort of continuing disease that targets straight people), those children the survivors do have will presumably have their orientations distributed at the usual rate (i.e. 95% straight), since orientation doesn't appear to be genetic. Which means that in the long term, the fact that the original survivor population consisted entirely of gay or bi people will become more or less irrelevant. However, a 95% population loss in the initial event will be a pretty big deal, and will obviously result in societal chaos as well as the abandonment of some remote regions (as the population in those regions will be small enough that inbreeding becomes a concern).
>>5856137
We'd lose a lot of large cities due to a lack of infrastructure maintenance, too.
Honestly as long as Trump is out, we'll be fine.
>>5855850
I guess you don't understand much about genetics. Most of the (few) new babies produced will be straight but regardless of that the world would go into chaos.
>>5856137
Sexual orientation has a genetic component otherwise there wouldn't be a way for homosexuality to be selected for evolutionarily speaking; it would not be maintained at the rates we see. Fetishes and preferences aren't the same as sexual orientation which is thought to be determined during brain development in the womb. Obviously the real interplay has genetics, epigenetics, maternal hormones, maternal antibodies, birth order, and many other things at play during that critical window.
>>5857264
He would be king in the brave new world.
As >>5856144 said, the economy would most likely collapse, if not suffer greatly.
On the plus side, in order to save our species, we'd eventually come up with a reproductive system specifically for legbutts (e.g. males and females reproduce, all males go to genetic male parent and partner, all females go to genetic female parent and partner). This would either repopulate the world with heterosexuals, who can become our babyslaves once again, or (assuming that heterosexuals can never be created again) would give a sustainable system to maintain the population.
In addition, with a far lower proportion of the population having sex with the opposite gender for pleasure, we'd be unlikely to see another population boom like the one we have now, because fewer accident babies, meaning that food, land, and other resources would be more available, thus causing poverty rates to plummet.
>Civillization will continue after 95% of the population is gone
Do you think so?
>>5855850
Civilization would be fucked. Humanity, on the other hand, would be fine. It's not as though gays and lesbians are incapable of reproducing with each other; it's just not their preferred sexual activity.
