Magrat Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Here's my little theory: Let us begin by supposing that the next step in human evolution is asexuality. That humans might be the first race to move beyond the mere drive to propagate the species. We are aware that there are enough people in the world; that there are already many who suffer from neglect. To create more is not progress. So what, biologically, spiritually and practically, will our purpose be? What is our driving force? Without the drive to form a sexual relationship, will individual freedom and variance of thought and lifestyle have greater value? In the future, if more people are born asexual, what will be the new goal of the human race? And what can we do as pioneers toward this goal? Think of the impact we will have on the rest of society. We will break down the powers. Everything now banks on appealing to sexuality--advertising, entertainment, social structures. We could break these and make them again, with a different focus. The drive to form sexual relationships is assumed to be shared by everyone, and now that it is not, maybe we can find something better for all of humanity to share. My question is, what? And, is it worth the trouble? My idea is that, whether or not my little evolution idea has any validity, our focus should now be to improve the quality of life instead of creating more life forced to live in bad conditions. Link to post Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 "My idea is that, whether or not my little evolution idea has any validity, our focus should now be to improve the quality of life instead of creating more life forced to live in bad conditions." I like that. :) I've always believed one great reason for being pro-choice as far as abortion goes is just that we have enough life already, and we should definitely try to improve the quality of life before bring more life in to live in bad conditions. I like your evolution theory. It's true, the human race could be evolving to be asexual, and we could be the first ones. That's true. Maybe not, but maybe. If indeed that is the case then we are very special :) and its a cool way to look at things. In terms of what our purpose is, then, I don't know. I've always believed in people being kind to other people and helping them out. I've always held that to be the purpose of life, in absence of anything better. Maybe our purpose is just to make the world a better place, as we don't have the distraction of sex to get in the way. My vision of a more perfect world would be one where people were infinitely more connected to each other than they are now - not physically as in sex but emotionally, where people valued each other and genuinely worked together and appreciated each other. That kind of utopia does not seem like it is going to happen any time in the near future, however. It is a good question, though, and thank you for bringing it up. What would a more perfect, sexless society look like? Or even what should the world look like for us, in which sex is still the driving force for most people but not for us - what should be our driving force? What is anyone's driving force, anyway? For some it is obviously just "to get laid," but for many other sexual people sex does not seem to be by any means the end all be all. It brings into question basic questions about the meaning of life, which I think we all have struggled with at one point or another. Kate Link to post Share on other sites
whirlygirl Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 What would a more perfect, sexless society look like? "...one where two people could develop a loving relationship without sex..." whirlygirl xx Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Is that one of those monsters from Fraggle Rock? Link to post Share on other sites
ogbg Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 (gets hypnotized by whirlygirl's avatar and sits at the computer for hours with a blank look in her eyes) :shock: Link to post Share on other sites
whirlygirl Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 :D mmm, grrl-hypno-power!! Link to post Share on other sites
Lukara Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 'We should work to better ourselves and humanity' OK I admit, I stole that one from Jean Luc Picard, but still, I like the idea. Along with sex, we should say goodbye to money, money and sex being the root of all evil :D:D and then.... the world will be great... (Ok, maybe not, but still, it's nice to think it might be...) Link to post Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 yay, then we wouldnt have capitalism - id second that! hehe. Kate Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I agree with Lukara. Send all your money to me, and I'll dispose of it appropriately :) Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 they're also using sex to market disney land. kinda makes you feel dirty when you go now, doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 yay, then we wouldnt have capitalism - id second that! hehe. That's right! I mean, why let people freely exchange their goods for other goods they value more, thereby increasing the wealth of all parties involved? Oppression and poverty for all are the way to go! It's true, the human race could be evolving to be asexual, and we could be the first ones. That's true. No, it's probably not. Evolution is not some force with a will of its own. It happens through natural selection: essentially, those with the best genes survive to reproduce the most (actually, I think there's something about one's offspring surviving, too, but this is far from my area of expertise). If you think about it, I think the reason why we won't be selected is pretty obvious. And aury said.... they're also using sex to market disney land. What? When? Where? I live near Disneyland, and so there are quite a few TV ads for it, but I've yet to see one that involved sex in any way. What, you want me to be on topic? Fine, fine. I'm not really comfortable with this idea, that we should all work towards some sort of ideal, asexual society. I mean, what the hell? Just because I happen to be asexual, that means I have some kind of responsibility to change society? (And no, that attitude is not explicitly mentioned in anyone's posts, but there seems to be an undercurrent of it.) My asexuality -- and everyone else's asexuality -- is an accident of nature, and I categorically reject the notion that any accident of birth puts any sort of moral imperative on my shoulders. Link to post Share on other sites
Magrat Posted May 28, 2003 Author Share Posted May 28, 2003 Yay, people replied! Kate -- Yeah, hrm, abortion... in my eyes, it shouldn't be an issue because it wouldn't be an issue if people would just Not Have Sex in the first place, but I guess that is too much to ask and is certainly unrealistic. I think it would be nice if all people who _do_ want to have kids would think about adoption first. And the whole "what should our purpose be?" issue does get quite complicated when you consider that sexuals also have a purpose beyond having sex. Without sex as a distraction, we definitely have freedom to devote all of our focus, energy and drive behind anything we choose as individuals. I like your utopia idea, too. Depending on how you look at it, it seems like we are either quite close to it or really far away. Gorax -- I think that my avatar is called a Meep, and it's from Quest for Glory 1. Inkburrow -- Firstly, I love Get Fuzzy. Nextly, I don't know much about evolution myself, but to me it's always seemed less about survival of the fittest and more about survival of the one most capable of adapting to the current environment. In a world where there are not enough resources for those being born--or the resources aren't being evenly distributed, or whatever causes so many to grow up needy--I think it isn't out of the question for some to adapt to a world in which such rapid continuation of the species isn't needed. The environment supporting us will no longer support us if we continue to reproduce at this rate, and so we are adapting. More and more of us might be born asexual in the future. Now, there is the question as to how the human race knows and anticipates this problem of overcrowding, and I admit that's pretty mystical. But if the human race had a logic of its own, I'd say it would see the benefit in slowing down production. Especially since we might end up with the technology to create life flawlessly in the future via cloning or whatever. And yeah, asexuality certainly doesn't give anyone any obligation. Like I mentioned earlier, it just seems to free us to pursue what we would. And I was wondering if, as a species, we would start to have a sort of inborn drive toward something besides reproduction. Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 First of all, I love Get Fuzzy. Me too! Bucky reminds me of me. >:D The first problem with your theory is that we don't know if asexuality is caused by genetics or by something else. Nextly, I don't know much about evolution myself, but to me it's always seemed less about survival of the fittest and more about survival of the one most capable of adapting to the current environment. The thing with evolution, though, is that the mechanism it occurs by is reproduction. Here's a generalization: What happens is that an individual organism winds up with a characteristic that somehow makes it more capable of surviving long enough to reproduce, and/or makes its offspring healthier or better able to survive. Let's call the gene that causes those characteristics Gene A. When this happens, Gene A gets passed down to the organism's offspring. Provided Gene A provides the same benefits for them as it did for their parent, those offspring pass it down, and then their offspring after them. And so, if Gene A is beneficial, it spreads within the gene pool. Meanwhile, the organisms without Gene A aren't as capable of reproducing/producing healthy offspring -- and so eventually, they get replaced. Provided asexuality's genetic, though, by its very nature it's not the sort of trait that's liable to get passed down. Yes, asexuals can (and presumably have) had children, but I don't think I need to explain why it's not all that common. In a world where there are not enough resources for those being born--or the resources aren't being evenly distributed, or whatever causes so many to grow up needy And this would produce asexuals in First World countries why? Changes in a species in response to environmental factors seem like they should only show up in the area where those environmental factors are. If starvation prompts the creation of more asexual children, then wouldn't there pretty much only be asexuals in places where there is starvation? The environment supporting us will no longer support us if we continue to reproduce at this rate, and so we are adapting. Generally, when a species has reached the limits of its environment, its numbers are trimmed via something besides evolution, or even changes in its reproductive patterns -- something like a food shortage. I don't know of any exceptions, though I guess they might exist. You're suggesting some kind of world-spanning, biological equivalent of the collective unconscious, some sort of semi-sentient entity capable of anticipating humanity's needs and propelling the species in that direction. And that's not science. Not good science, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
(SP) Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 That's right! I mean, why let people freely exchange their goods for other goods they value more, thereby increasing the wealth of all parties involved? Oppression and poverty for all are the way to go! uh-oh! looks like someone went to the bs ayn rand school of economics or something........ ... .. not trying to be a bitch, but i am an anti-capitalist, and that doesn't mean i am stalinist or think the soviet union was good.. Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 It won't let me do a quote within a quote. I think. I'm not really up to trying nesting quote tags. Quote: That's right! I mean, why let people freely exchange their goods for other goods they value more, thereby increasing the wealth of all parties involved? Oppression and poverty for all are the way to go! uh-oh! looks like someone went to the bs ayn rand school of economics or something........ ... .. not trying to be a bitch, but i am an anti-capitalist, and that doesn't mean i am stalinist or think the soviet union was good.. And what part of my statement were you taking offense to, precisely? I didn't say you approved of tossing people in the gulag, and that wasn't even something I intended to imply. Here: my comments explained and defended. Oppression: people want to exchange goods for other goods. That's what they naturally want to do. Yes, occasionally you can get little pockets of people who just happily share, but generally, people want to swap stuff. If you want them to not trade, you have to go in and prohibit them from doing so. That's using the rule of law to prevent people from doing something that does not inherently hurt anyone, and yes, I'd consider that oppression. Poverty: See Exhibit A: human history. See also Exhibit B: the current state of the world. Authoritarian economic systems have done badly in pretty much every instance, and while not all capitalist countries are rich, a good number of them are. Generally, IIRC, authoritarian economic systems fail for a couple of reasons. One, if you make it so that people can't buy certain things, or make it so that a good portion of their income will get skimmed away, they have less incentive to work hard. Two, if you want to keep people from trading (see above), you have to force them to, and that requires hiring a good deal of law enforcement, and law enforcement personnel do not actually produce anything, and thus do not actually add to a country's wealth. Capitalism creates wealth: See Exhibits A and B. Let me explain this, though. Wealth != money. Wealth ~= the value you put on your possessions. Being able to freely buy things increases wealth because when you buy, say, a T-shirt, you are valuing the shirt more than the money you paid for it (otherwise, why would you have bought it?). Thus, you exchanged the less valuable money for the more valuable shirt, and so you got wealthier. The opposite is true for the store you bought the T-shirt at: they value the money more than the shirt, and so when they get the more valuable money for the less valuable shirt, they've become wealthier. And now, for a further reply to Magrat, which I somehow forgot to do earlier: And I was wondering if, as a species, we would start to have a sort of inborn drive toward something besides reproduction. I had written something on how we already have inborn drives for things other than sex, but it didn't go anywhere. Anyway, I want to note that sex does not equal relationships. If people stop having sex, they're not going to stop cultivating their relationships, so I don't think that there'd be much of a change in the amount of free time humanity has. I mean, they'd just spend the time they would have been screwing doing something like playing a board game. It's the same, in terms of productivity. Link to post Share on other sites
Mikey Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Inky, I don't think anyone of us needs a comprehensive school example of capitalism to know how it works. Anyway, Americans seems to understand only two extreme options: A) Free, unlimited capitalism and B) Strict, authoritative communism as in Soviet Union. There are, however, something in between. Just the fact that some capitalits countries are rich at the given moment doesn't mean that these societies are built on just basis that could create well-being for most of the people. (I don't even want to mention words like "equality" or "social democracy", for usually US residents think they're just some "commie bullshit".) yours, Mikey Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Anyway, Americans seems to understand only two extreme options: I am well aware of what a social democracy is, and I am aware that there are options between anarcho-capitalism and Communism. And if you're going to imply that I'm ignorant based on where I live, you can have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up, and then you can go shove your bigotry up your ass. Just the fact that some capitalits countries are rich at the given moment doesn't mean that these societies are built on just basis that could create well-being for most of the people. And redistributing income is just? Since when were other people inherently my responsibility? Just because I happen to be born human and (possibly) talented and lucky, I have to fork over my money to take care of other people? Nuts to that. Link to post Share on other sites
Lukara Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 We don't have to become communists if we give up money. If everybody would work to better themselves instead of working to get rich, than nobody would need money and everybody would be happy. You could get a free bread from the bakery and the baker would get a free haitcut and the barber would get a free mercedes... Unfortunately I think that the mentality of ppl nowadays does not allow this yet :( Link to post Share on other sites
Mikey Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Inky Schminky, I just said that many Americans have very fixed attitude about these matters, and usually they become irritated if their view is questioned. You just gave a great proof on that. But I do not categorize nationalities or people by their birthplace. I apologize for having spoken about US people in general. Yours, Mikey Link to post Share on other sites
ogbg Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Am I the only one here who watched that old cartoon about why money was invented? :shock: I can't remember the exact items, but it went something like this... Person: "I want to buy a pair of roller skates. Will you accept this fish as payment? Person with roller skates: "No, I want movie tickets." So the person searches around and finally finds somebody who has movie tickets. Person: "I want your movie tickets. Will you accept this fish as payment?" Person with movie tickets: "No, I want a pot." So the person searches around and finally finds somebody who has a cooking pot. Person: "I want your pot. Will you accept this fish as payment?" Person with pot: "No, I want a CD." This goes on and on and on and on and on until he finally finds somebody who needs a fish. Then he trades with about 12 people until he finally gets the movie tickets and is able to trade them for roller skates. If they'd had money, things would have gone like this: Person: "I see you have used roller skates for $12. I'll take them." Person with roller skates: "Okay!" We tend to take these things for granted, you know... but keep in mind, they're invented for a reason. And they aren't invented by governments! They're invented by people who get fed up with inconvenience. I've had my say! Yay, hooray! :D Link to post Share on other sites
Magrat Posted May 28, 2003 Author Share Posted May 28, 2003 Hee, Bucky is so amusing :) And this would produce asexuals in First World countries why? Well, I'm assuming that there are plenty of asexuals in other countries without internet access and that many of them, just like us, are convinced by their society that everyone is sexual and thus are not yet rising up in protest. You're suggesting some kind of world-spanning, biological equivalent of the collective unconscious Yep, pretty much. And trying to mesh that with a more accepted theory isn't getting me anywhere. I see what you mean--there's nothing to back up my theory scientifically. It really would depend on some collective unconscious to anticipate both the problem (overpopulation) and the alternative (cloning or whatever). Regarding the capitalism discussion. Those who would rather live as Lukara suggested, sort of bartering for goods and services, helping each other out on a local level, are free to do so. It's an admirable lifestyle if people choose to forsake the pursuit of their own unlimited wealth in order to promote a society in which everyone has equal value and everyone is cared for. But what is the value in that if it is enforced from above? I would resent not having the choice of where to spend my money or limitations on the goods and services that I can receive. What's the use of working hard if I don't benefit--either by spending it on something I want for myself, or on using it to help out the causes that I am interested in supporting. Oogieboogie, I like your story. I don't think I ever saw that cartoon. But that explains it: among one local community, it's difficult to find all of the goods and services that you want. Exchanging a haircut for bread might work if you're friends of the baker, but you'd have to be friends with everyone who manufactures or sells everything you'd ever need in order to live like that completely. Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 Everyone has been so much more civil than I was. I'm impressed. And shamed into politeness. But I do not categorize nationalities or people by their birthplace. I apologize for having spoken about US people in general. Apology accepted. Regarding the capitalism stuff: I agree with Magrat, pretty much. If you want to live in a community where everyone just shares, great! Heck, I've experienced being in a gift culture to a small degree, and it's really neat*. So go: share and be happy! But don't force me to participate. And yeah, money is just a more efficient way of bartering. * Provided it works, which I think it might be able to for groups that are small and friendly enough. Link to post Share on other sites
Bestatued Head Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 *The semi- anarchists walks into the forum (thats me)* Here goes the extension to everyones theories: -abortion should be allowed... only if the couple can aviod sex to begin with. -i don't believe we are evolving into anything more than what we already are. as far as i know asexuality has been around since man set foot on the earth. -the concept of capitalism is bs, i think money is bs and to say one more thing, I think society is bs. i am not saying that people individually are bad, it's only when they are around other people. You have all seen it, when people are around other people, they aren't true to themselves and act sinincere (probably to societies idealistic(?) standards). Now if people are by themselves they are more apt to do as they please... and the only reason there is crime in this world is because the vengence people have over those standards which society produces... I'm going to stop my brain is cramping up. Link to post Share on other sites
AgentNyder Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 eh, Daphne, how does that make Capitalism bs? :? Oh and I believe in a small government sector that should be there mainly to provide where free markets will fail. (I do know a bit about this considering I have studied economics at university) Link to post Share on other sites
xena_trade_center Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I don't think that evolution into a asexual society would make a difference in regards human survival... I mean, theres already places in the world where their trying to increase reproduction.. (and yes... I know there are places who have birthing resrictions also, for the opposite reason). But countries with a better economic status, seems to be the one more likely to follow the trend over low birth rates and negative growth. And to think of the increase of barren women and sterile men to add to that... In the future there might be a negative growth rate regardless of asexuals, so I supose it doesn't really make a difference if asexuals increase in number or not? Either way, were looking towards a future with a dwindling population. Link to post Share on other sites
AgentNyder Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Yes you're right Xena Trade Centre, and immigration will only retard the long term growth effect. Population growth is actually a vital component of GDP growth at the moment. Yet the Government wishes only to import productive foreigners which is why they are giving asylum seekers such a hard time. #Opinion set to neutral - please don't flame me..# YET in the future I think this will change and growth will not be so limited... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.