(This is really more of a blog, but I am posting it here so the replies can be easier to follow, for those interested.) 

We all know that the human body isn't perfect. 
It is clear that we are still in development from natural selection instead of being the finished product of intentional design. 
When we look at the negative impact humanity orchestrates, I can't help but think that maybe homo sapiens are going to be yet another pruned branch; a dead end. Really, there are only two ways for us to go.
In a few billion more years, we will have either developed into something unrecognizable (unlikely, given our urges for self destruction.) Or we are going to have wiped out our own species, and probable quite a few more that were unfortunate enough to share a planet with us. Sad? Yes. Catastrophic? No. 
Let's face it. We have scientific evidence that the planet has been rebooting itself systematically long before we started to slime across its surface. How many dinosaurs are roaming over the great plains? How many extinctions on the small scale as well as the planetary took place long before we mastered fire? 
It would take the total destruction of every single bug, bacteria, virus and well....EVERYTHING..and then, still...
The cosmos will still continue to spin, which means that whatever environment created the potential for universal life will still exist, and eventually start all over again. Existence as we know it is such a temporary thing. Survival of any species, let alone ours depends on the rules of simplicity. 
Humanity is anything but simple. 
The only thing that gives us an 'edge' in the over all predator/prey struggle is our ability to think and reason. 
It seems that our logical mind is always at war with our base urges. We know we need to consume less, conserve more and reverse our environmentally destructive path to survive in this little window of reality. 
But we don't. 
And we won't. 


There is no deity to blame for this failed blueprint. We don't have any omnipotent 'plan' for our future.
It is in our very genes to act out this play....but why?
At what point did we evolve into what we are now? 
What was the turning point in our development that wrote the screen play for this monumental fuck up that we have since become?

I would say that it comes down to procreation. 

When we gradually developed pleasurable sex, our species as we know it ended. 
We started down the irreversible path of destroying ourselves and everything around us. 

Take a look at other animals. How many of them actually enjoy the act of intercourse? How many gain physical pleasure from it? 

This is my theory. Feel free to pick it apart at will. 

<b>When the mating urge becomes linked to pleasure instead of reproduction, a hedonistic species arises. </b>

In some species, this is nothing more than the promise of reproduction and continuation of the line.. 
In ours, it has lead to over population and the lack of the ability to weigh costs and benefits in the long term. 
Immediate pleasure supersedes future security.
Wait. No. Not just security, but future SURVIVAL. 

We have adapted to go for immediate pleasure without weighing the future cost. 
Procreation was the start. 
We had sex because it felt good to rub our wet bits together, not because we wanted to risk agony and possible death for the continuation of our species. 

We had sex because it felt good, despite the fact that the tribe couldn't really handle another member. 

There is a correlation with environmental knowledge, too. 
We eat what tastes yummy, despite the fact that it's literally killing our world. 
We drive cars three miles to work and then complain when the air quality falls and our allergies and asthma act up. 
Instead of asking 'where does it stop?' 
I'm wondering where it started. 

Thoughts? Opinions? 

Views: 181

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We can evolve culturally and many of us do. I think the main issue is that most are prevented from doing so by various groups for who that would remove benefits. The use a variety of tactics but the main ones are fear and ostracism. We even see former presidents use these tactics
If we want to help people evolve culturally we have to utterly discredit the elite that prevent that evolution. Perhaps this is something we should take more seriously. with the right planning and strategies I am sure we could make the difference required.

Don't you agree?
The problem of overpopulation is not a problem at all.
Currently we are not overpopulated, nor will we ever be since we have the ability to make more space both here on earth and out in space. So this means its not sex either.

No in my opinion its two diverging and contrary evolutionary tactics. Tactics that divide humanity into two groups. One group, a minority hoards resources at the expense of the majority. This is why there is no money available to build ocean cities and space colonies to deal with population issues. Indeed it is why there are not enough resources available to us, to stop poverty and starvation. A small elite have the resources necessary and they will not share them.

It breaks down like this:

This is group one: "The Hoarders" or “Authoritarians”.
This group make up a small percentage of the population but they tend to be in control. They have learned how to get hold of and keep resources in reserve for their own use. Kind of like the way squirrels hide nuts. This group have considerable leadership qualities (they would need them in order to convince people to help them get control of resources) and it is likely that they first began to emerge when the shift from hunter-gathering to farming took place. In fact is is likely that they were responsible for it. They are the group responsible for the creation of ruling elites such as kings, religious hierarchy and so on. This evolutionary tactic also depends on there not being too many of them, so in order to survive the “hoarders” do not breed in great numbers, rather they limit their population. I have no idea what the mechanism is but I suspect its a gene set that is not easily passed on, or a genetic combination that can only happen if two of the right candidates get together. Since the vast majority of the population are not prone to this evolutionary tendency it is difficult for two to get together to produce offspring with these tendencies and since it is primarily an unconscious trait they have no way of directing their efforts to make more, though there are some exceptions. Royal families and so on.

Now we come to group two: "The Sharers"
This is the the group most of the population of Earth fall into. They survive by use of the the tactic of co-operation and resource sharing. Their programing helps societies survive. They need company and the saftey of numbers. Co-operation is their primary survival tactic.
This group also breaks down into two subgroups.
Authoritarian followers (those who want to follow authority) and anti authoritarians (those who do not). Of course its not that simple. Lets say we have a range going from 1 being completely anti-authoritarian to 100 being completely willing to follow authority. The average is 50, but people fall on all sides of the spectrum. This can be seen in the research complied and analyzed by Bob Altemeyer in his book “The Authoritarians.” You can take the test in chapter one of his book and find out where you fall. The book is free and available here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

So here is where I get to the point:
If we were all subject to the primary object of sharing and co-operation the earth would be fine.
But most of us are victims to an evolutionary tactic that directs the behavior of a minority to hoard resources for themselves and keep them from others. The hoarders are also the ones responsible for pollution, since they have the resources to solve the problem, but will not share them in order to do so.
With out the 50+'s “The Hoarders” would fail so I recommend all you low scoring anti Authoritarians breed like rabbits and find ways to change or stop the breeding of Authoritarian follows. Then we have no Authoritarians and no overpopulation, pollution, starvation, war and all the other problems anymore.
So what you're saying is that the unwashed, free love, co-op without currency for survival commune dwelling hippies of the earth are actually the most moral and upstanding of our species, and the religiously charismatic televangelist, bigoted, in the closet, woman-repressing pieces of shit running our social regulations are the scum of society, yet still in charge?
And you say it like it's old news?
Ok.. maybe the idea of breeding them out of existence is a new idea, but I say it sounds way too much like some republican hatched rumor to write off to future history text books why their party was disintegrated. Sort of like how the old die hard racists try to claim that the civil war was never about racism, but really about states rights vs. federal rights and the racism thing was a smear by the winning north, because the winners always write history?
Or fuck, maybe they are going to use it as some Issac vs. Ishmael tribal war between the commies and the free market Americans. They were DESTINED to rule until the lesser of the species rose up and destroyed them.
Oh wait... or was that Cain and Able?
Or David and...his dozen brothers?
Or the LDS belief that Jesus was the second son of God, the first being his elder brother Satan.
Or....well hell.
There are tons of sibling rivalries and dominance usurpers through out the Bible...Maybe this study PROVES the Bible was true..
Or maybe in modern days, we'll re-write it completely. Less goats and ox. More cars and fast food. Same stories, same characters, same bullshit stolen from the older religion which spawned it.
Obama the Anti-Christ, anyone?
I'm up for a little fanfic.
Woah. Sorry about that.
I'm a little baked.
I think I better step away from the computer and come back when I can make more sense.
"So what you're saying is that the unwashed, free love, co-op without currency for survival commune dwelling hippies of the earth are actually the most moral and upstanding of our species,"
NO I said nothing about morality, and I certainly wasn't talking about hippies. If you look at the figures any person scoring under 70 on the test is in the majority. Unfortunately they are also fairly un motivated when it comes to leading and making change. They are the average person.

"and the religiously charismatic televangelist, bigoted, in the closet, woman-repressing pieces of shit running our social regulations are the scum of society, yet still in charge?"


This little theory of mine is actually backed up with actual peer reviewed evidence, The same evidence that proves the points made in "The Authoritarians" and it's sourced in there too.

As for breeding them out of existence? Well that was a joke, though if it ever did happen I am pretty certain it would work.

I take it your comment is meant to be satirical too. At least I hope so.
Well, I seriously doubt I'd be the first to think up the idea of
"Huh. We can either breed them out or wipe them out."

But yeah. It was satirical.

"So what you're saying is that the unwashed, free love, co-op without currency for survival commune dwelling hippies of the earth are actually the most moral and upstanding of our species,"
NO I said nothing about morality, and I certainly wasn't talking about hippies. If you look at the figures any person scoring under 70 on the test is in the majority. Unfortunately they are also fairly un motivated when it comes to leading and making change. They are the average person.

-Oh. Well, I live close to Oaksterdamn, where moral hippies ARE the average person...at least around here.
Misty you said:
"We have adapted to go for immediate pleasure without weighing the future cost."
But thats not true of you, since you would rather change things. And its not true of the majority.
The problem is that we feel we are powerless to change things because the minority controlling elite have convinced us we can not.
If we can get past this conditioning we may have a chance.
All the other things are just distractions to take our mind off how powerless we feel.

I explained this more fully in my other post in this thread.
Sex is pleasurable to most species, which helps enforce the act as a good thing in their minds. All the apes have pleasurable sex, chimps and Bonobos especially. Monkeys have pleasurable sex as well. Dolphins do too, and are incredibly sexual, even going so far as trying to initiate sexual contact with humans.

The problem is not necessarily evolution or genetics, but culture. When the Europeans first came to the Americas, they found people that had learned how to make nature work around and with them to an astonishing degree, so much so that when the first Americans were largely wiped out, the ecology of the environments they lived in were thrown all out of whack, which is what accounts for those untold millions of American bison that covered the landscape in the 1800's, and those billions of passenger pigeons that darkened the sky. The natives had altered nature to their needs and had kept those two species in check in ages past. Natives of the Amazon also changed the forest to their needs, evidenced by the more carbon rich soil in areas around their settlements, as well as food trees surrounding the paths they used. So, in essence, it perfectly possible for our species to be less destructive, its just the major cultures in power these days are quite destructive. That's changing though. Heck, more and more countries are gaining a stable population instead of a quickly growing one even as we speak!

For more information, and some rather uplifting information at that, I highly recommend these talks from TED.com:
Yeah, but for every species that enjoys sex, there are plenty more that don't.
There are even a couple that it can be downright life threatening for.
Males that get devoured after doing the deed, and females that are basically raped by pretty brutal force in others.
Some species of sharks and some insects, just off the top of my head.....
I wonder if those that experience less pleasure during sex have a more stable population, or if there is any correlation whatsoever between the mating habits and evolution/adaptation of stable growth.
To go a step further, I wonder if the creatures that don't take physical pleasure from sex have a better risk/benefits analysis ability or are more cautious pursuing game.
I guess basically what I'm looking at is if there is any connection between self destructive behavior as a species (such as killing for fun, not just food or protection or over use of a sustenance source.) and physically pleasurable sex.
We are descendant from herbivores so maybe this behaviour is just refuse from our days of trying to mantain a stable population while being eaten by much larger predators. Already with contraception we have at least slowed our growth from that time; think Monty Python's 'Meaning of life' and the catholic family. Maybe this trend of slowed growth will continue. One planet can only support so many.
I don't think our ancestors were ever truly herbivores. We, and most of our fossil ancestors exhibit a generalized dentition typical of omnivores. Early primates probably ate a lot of bugs :). Not exactly big game hunters, but it's still meat...
Would just like to ask on what basis we observe animals do not have sex for fun?
I mean we have doplhins who we realise have sex both for procreational pourposes and because it feels good for them. And then we had our one animal that did so so it wasn't anything big anymore and we didn't look much further.

The statement that animals don't hump for fun of it like we do. Do we KNOW this?




Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk Jun 20. 0 Replies


Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk. Last reply by Chris Russell Jun 6. 11 Replies

I'm not an atheist anymore...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie Jun 12. 19 Replies

Alex J O'Connor

Started by JadeBlackOlive in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman Jun 1. 3 Replies

Blog Posts

Equuleus - the little horse

Posted by Brad Snowder on July 9, 2017 at 1:08am 0 Comments


Posted by Mary smith on July 2, 2017 at 12:35pm 0 Comments

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service