Wrongywrongwrong appears to be wrong again.
Let's look at a simple doctoral thesis from 1971 first, to show that (a) the effects of overpopulation among test animals - in this case, mice - were recognised, reproduced, and published by students 45 years ago, and that (b) massive overgrowth in a population of mice will lead to everything from the benign - e.g., heightened rates of homosexual behaviour in the experimental group - to the desperate:
Previous research has found that if a population were allowed to exceed a comfortable density level, then many catastrophic events occurred such as increased mortality among the young, cannibalism, homosexuality, and lack of maternal functions.
As an aside, look at how and why both maternal and paternal functions are damaged among humans - a thing predicted, tested, and reproduced in animal studies:
"Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities 2014: Statistics and Interventions - Child Welfare Information Gateway"
[a href=https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatality.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiFkuT357rRAhWIxFQKHX4zDt0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNE4Ge7sgtbCfcIdNxRV8MNw_OSuBQ&sig2=Y3JEi2qlC8AuypUaQAAD3g]Source[/a]
Who Are the Perpetrators?
"No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition,
individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims.
"In 2014, parents, acting alone or with
another parent, were responsible for 79.3 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities.
"More than one-quarter (28.0
percent) were perpetrated by the mother acting alone, 15.0 percent were perpetrated by the father acting alone, and 21.8 percent were perpetrated by the mother and father acting together.
"Nonparents (including kin and child care providers, among others) were responsible for 15.7 percent of child fatalities, and child fatalities with unknown perpetrator relationship data accounted for 5.0
percent of the total."
Correlation is not causation, but researchers see a similar kind of behaviour among other animals all the time: An animal under pressure to find food will kill some or all of her young if she cannot feed them - and then the animal will recoup the energy she burned in gestation, birth, and initial care by eating the offspring.
Back to homosexuality: There are so many sites that grapple with these questions (in both peer-reviewed and lay publications) that I picked an academicaly accessible site - [a href=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna]an article[/a]Science - that deals with topic in such a way that laypersons can understand the stats under all the jargon that often appears in the studies themselves.
The title: Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA - published 8 October 2015
There are so many of these articles with varing degrees of real value to the reader; it's sometimes hard to recognise that a good source magazine is very hard to separate all of the individuals strands for analysis.
My own opinion is the reason for such a massive upswing in the recognition and discussion of homosexuality is due not only to the efforts of civil rights groups to encourage the recognition of homosexuality as a natural orientation but also because there actually is a higher percentage of homosexuals now, in relation to the percentage of the population who identify as heterosexual or as having some other sexual preference (unrelated to humans).
And that is a good thing - far preferred to cannibalism (or so I would assume.)
