[FoRK] Re: "Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them."
Stephen D. Williams
<sdw at lig.net> on
Mon Apr 23 13:14:36 PDT 2007
Tom Higgins wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>> > Are our sex drives irrational? Absolutely, yes.
> um..No. They are a rationale way to propagate the species. Fuck early
> fuck often. As with many evolutionarily derived devices it often gets
> used psst its prime/ by other devices/ for other means. The pleasure
> factor of sex has becomes the ends in itself with little regard for
> propagation, often even with every regard to not propagate.
Clearly, from the Selfish Gene point of view, sex is "rational" a bit
for propagation, but mainly, for humans, to create cohesiveness and help
cause various indirect goal-seeking actions that, along with other
effects, allows us to be born helpless with big brains and gives rise to
The implied point is that after all of the important positive effects
are satisfied or moot, the dumb drive becomes irrational in that
You could argue that, because we have mime-evolved our way out of an
average lifespan of 25 years and various other brutal issues of living
as savages, that the precise mechanisms of human sexuality are
mismatched quite a bit. It takes significant management and
self-control energy to reach an optimum equilibrium and it isn't
generally handled well with any consistency (i.e. teen pregnancy, AIDS
in Africa, etc.). Careful cultural construction can make this come out
OK on average, but clearly there are negative effects, even if it is
just being distracted far more than optimum.
> So is the supposed irrationality the sex drive or the ways the human
> vehicle is using/misusing/abusing it?
If it was fully rational, it wouldn't get misused much, or, more to the
point, have to be biased so much, through aggressive cultural
mechanisms, against abuse or inappropriateness. Our drive to eat,
drink, and sleep generally lead to appropriate actions without much
training, subject only to long-term issues.
> See, it is very much a case not of making science palpable to the
> masses but rather pulverizing science to atomics bits and
> reconstructing it to fit another need. The need to feel good about
> oneself can be addressed without dismantling the quest for knowledge.
> Need I remind everyone here of Harrison Bergeron?
How in the heck is that related to the points being made??
More information about the FoRK