Therefore Aristotle asserts that those who are 54 years old mustn’t procreate children any longer, although, for their health or some other reason they can still practise coitus…Now nature can’t, for its part, deny the fact that it is on the base of Aristotle’s prescription, but not even eliminate it. In fact as a consequence of its basic principle ” natura non facit saltus”, it can’t stop, all of a sudden, man’s spermatic secretion, but must carry out also here, like in every drying up, a gradual deterioration. But procreation, during this period, should beget weak men, dull, sick and with a short life… What has been said here about procreation in the declining age is valid also for the immature age. …Its only one target is the preservation of the individual, but, above all of the species in the best perfection possible. …As a consequence of this precaution of nature,there is usually, about the age pointed out by Aristotle, a light and gradual tendency to paederasty which becomes clearer and clearer and more definite as the capability of begetting strong and healthy children reduces. …Also with the Greeks,…we find out that lover is usually represented like a rather old man by writers, above all by philosophers, particularly by Plato and Aristotle.
It’s particularly interesting, with regard to this, a passage by Plutarch in Liber amatorious :”Love for boys which is a spurious and hidden love[1],rises well on in old age and drives away the genuine and original one “[1]. …even among gods we find out that only the oldest ones have lovers, for example, Zeus, but not Mars, Apollo, Bacchus and Mercury…
From this exposition it comes out that, while the vice we have examined seems to act directly against nature’s purposes, actually it acts just as a means to prevent worse troubles.
It’s a phenomenon present either in the phase of man’s life when the procreating capability is in decline or when such capability is still immature: both such phases constitute a danger for the species. Anyhow both of them, for moral reasons, should stop, but we couldn’t expect nature, in its acting,, considers what is quite moral. Therefore nature, forced by its own laws, clung, through the perversion of the instinct, to an expedient, a stratagem…
At this point the question is a logical consequence: how can Schopenhauer’s intuitions give value to the thesis also homosexuality represents a mechanism at genetic feedback or negative retroaction that nature thinks up to stop the exponential growth of human population?
In fact the German philosopher tells about paederasty, grown-ups’ love for adolescents and nowadays sexual intercourses with minors are considered as paedofhilia, are illegal and sanctioned by law[2].
Iconographically a homosexual is never represented like an old man or youth; on the contrary, if we make inquires, on Internet, about images with the keyword “gay “, we mostly find photos of vigorous and muscular young people at the height of their sexual maturity.
But why while at Aristotle’s times and also Schopenhauer’s nature had to prevent old people or too young ones from begetting because ” worried “about the fact that a probable product of their conception should have been faulty and now, on the contrary, it would make use of homosexual intinct to prevent procreation to fellows whose product of the conception, always according to Aristotle’s and Schopenhauer’s theses, might be but perfect? The answer is obvious: at present population isn’t certainly the one at Schopenhauer’s times and let alone Aristotle’s: on 31st October 2013 it touched seven billion people and its exponential growth shows no signs of stopping.Therefore it’s logical to hypothesize that, as we have already written in the posts just published and as we’ll always repeat with the concept of the “rebellious angels “, nature, perceiving the danger linked to overpopulation, tries to stop the growth also with the mechanism at genetic feedback or negative retroaction of homosexuality. As human population increases people with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality are generated and so they can be induced by such instinct not to beget.
As we have made it clear it’s a question of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, therefore those who are procreated with such an instinct aren’t compelled to follow it. That’s a question of a strong predisposition, bur anyhow a predisposition, scientists themselves who studied the genetics of homosxuality say so.
Another consequence comes from this, a very important one on an ethic point of view. Supporting the genes of depression and suicide means to damage ourselves (and perhaps also those who loved the suicide and got a great pain from his death); supporting the genes of unexplained aggressiveness means to damage the others, often in an irreparable way (homicides); supporting the genes of homosexuality doesn’t cause any damage to the others (obviously we refer to consenting adults) but entering a mechanism at genetic feedback or negative retroaction with which nature, together with other mechanisms at negative retroaction, tries to check the exponential growth of human population and this way to prevent the end of life on the planey earth.
Might this be , even if unconscious, the reason of the growing liking gay community gets from inside society and the same gay pride?
[1] ο παιδικοξ ερωξ, και γεγονωξ, και παρ’ ώραν τω βιω, νωθοξ και σκοτιοσ, εξελαυνει τον γνεσιον ερωτα και πρεσβυτερων, (puerorum amor , qui quum tarde in vita et intempestive, quasi spurius et occultus , exstitisset, germanum et natu majorem amorem expellit”
[2] Something very different from what we have seen with Aristotle happened in Crete where laws were generally favourable to homosexuality, included paederastry, as a means to check overpopulation.
See also:
Ferdinando Gargiulo offers you a new perspective on why new viral epidemics, assaults, infanticides, suicide epidemics and even environmental catastrophes. Always engaged in his research decides to create a blog to offer his readers content of high value.