Eros' Razor

Post Reply New Topic

There comes a time in our existance, that we seek a mate, or partner. This is natural. This is biological.

It is instinct, that drives us to find a mate in which to have intercourse with on many and all levels, most prominent being sexual.

If one is to believe in evolution, then one must accept that instinct, is a very beast-like mechanism. The instinct to mate, is to preserve our race or species ... to see our own offspring inherit the land which we sowed.

BUT ... how does this apply today in this era? Will evolution always demand 100% have the instinct to mate? When does the line have to be drawn between what HAS to be done and what has ALREADY been done?

The earth is overpopulated, my friends. The population grows. As we advance in technology, we become less obligated to mate. Less OBLIGATED. But the instinct is still there, as strong as it was when we were neanderthals! Is evolution going to slow down the urge to have sexual intercourse just because the world is overpopulated?

Evolution, unfortunatly, does not happen that fast. It is momentary, insomuch that by the time Natural Selection did away with most of our urge to mate, the world would already be at the relentless mercy of food shortages, little room to live, illness sweeping the masses.

So what do we do? My friends, it is up to us, to decide for sure, what instinct obligates us to do. It is my advice to you, this day, to think this over.

If a woman looks on a man in lust, let her ask herself: "Am I obligated to bear children? Do I want to bear children?" and if she honestly without a doubt answers "No", then she MUST NOT look upon the man again in lust; time is a'wasting when it comes to lust. It is something we can't always help but have, but is something we can give the VETO to, see?

Likewise, if a man sees a woman, and lusts after her, let him ask hismelf: "Do I really want to get this female pregnant? Am I obligated to do so as my ancestors were?"

If the answer is "Yes" (honestly and completely without doubt,) then go ahead and go after that mate!


(Please post feedback)

If you would like to work this topic through, I would strongly recommend Keith Stanovich's "The Robot's Rebellion: finding meaning in the age of Darwin"

The book takes a long look at what happens when an individual becomes aware that he has inherited, (and may at the extreme consist of) a set of genes producing impulses and instincts, and also a set of cultural values and assumptions, passed down by family, teachers and the surrounding society at large.

It's not a simple topic, for one example as soon as you question which impulses and ideas you are going to use to decide which impulses and ideas are good ones.

I will have to take a look into that. It definatly sounds like a book I would enjoy --- I might be able to read it and even elaborate on this thread or another my personal opinions afterward.

Fortunately, today we have birth control. I guess that negates your whole proposal.

Not really.

There's obviously more chance of having a child using birth-control
than there is not having sex at all.

Plus the fact that some view b-c as amoral.

Plus the fact that not everyone can afford regular b-c.

Plus a dozen other things that help hold my argument in place.

Your argument seems to be that people should avoid having sex purely for population-control reasons. For those who have no religious objections to using birth control and can afford it, this means your argument does not hold for them. Most Americans would find your argument laughable.

Are you trying to intellectualize not being able to find a sex partner by suggesting no one (or very few people) should have sex?

Your bitterness is really shining through, my friend. But no, that isn't the case. My sexual drive is extremely low as of lately, anyway.

And that was only part of my post: as talked about before, another part of it was deciding to use impulses and controlling instinct. That always isn't sexual; it can apply to many things.

The point of relationships isn't pregnancy. From a biological standpoint sure, but people don't think about that. People think about love and comfort and a mutual bond and so on, and if a person denies themself one because they aren't interested in having a child/children that's just stupid. People need to love and be loved, it's quite simple. Children aren't a large factor until much deeper in the relationship anyway.

How can a woman know just by looking at a guy if she is obligated to bear his children? She doesn't even know him and we all know viewpoints and ideas can change over time. And when a man is looking at a woman 'in lust' I doubt he's going to consider (even rationally) if he wants to get her pregnant. Even if he was interested in her as a potential partner, those things can't be decided until you are actually IN a relationship, and rather deeply.

Evolution has given us the illusion of freewill. But all Evolution cares about is
replication.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ic&t=15051

Something I wrote.

So being asexual is a devolution? But no doubt we never have freewill; it's either from other people, or from our base natural instincts that we are controlled and influenced. We only function because we think we're in control. If we didn't, we would see life for what it truly is: an ultimately pointless, finite exercise without any real meaning (beyond spreading our genes of course).
Sad. But hey, that's why we have religion (hope, meaning and the promise of eternal life).

Current sex drive is really high, yet unfulfilled. Feel no real need for kids, as I hate the little buggers.

Broader Teleology aside, obviously individual choices regarding procreation and sex for pleasure are now separable. What of it?

I was always told that evolution made sex seem like fun, that way we reproduced more. If the tigers suddenly decided that sex was a great way to spend the evening two or three times a week they wouldn't be an endangered species.

Ed Almos

Well, I have no intention of ever having children. So your advice to me would be to forswear sex completely until I'm totally menopausal?

I don't think I'll take that advice, but thanks for the suggestion!

I'd suspect he'd say you should absolutely
forswear sex AFTER menopause. As you'd
have no chance of spawning then.