If sin is wrong why does it feel good?

[mark9950]

I posted a tread about sodomy on the elsewhere board and got many interesting viewpoints from men and women about heterosexual sodomy.

It seems to me that this God character should have never made sin pleasureable in the first place if he did not want us to do it.


the tread


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60374

[Ovazor]

People tends to do things that make them feel good, and avoid doing things that do not make them feel good. Wouldn't it be a bit pointless to forbid something that nobody would want to do anyhow. If there was an commandment saying "thou shalt not hit an ostrich with a hummer", the only people violating it woulld be deviants who violate it just for the sake of breaking commandments.

Of course, if there was no temtation, nobody would fall, and god couldn't go on and play forgiving to those who grovel in the proper manner.

[Sci_Fidelity]

Silly heathens. It's the devil that makes it feel good </fundy>

[fatherphil]

for what its worth, i'll sometimes think that things were better when i felt free to do as i wanted with no fear that my actions were a sin. then i remember that i was not happy when i was doing that and i had never felt fulfilled but was always left needing more, always chasing after something i could never quite reach. the pleasure was momentary and felt empty in the long run.

that's not to say that things are completely different now that i have accepted Christ, for i still face struggles, but rather i have a sense of peace in my tormented soul that in many ways my battle is over and the victory is already won.

just my take on it and the way i look at things.

[Howard]

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity
Silly heathens. It's the devil that makes it feel good </fundy> No. It’s more like… silly heathen, don’t you realize that life is just an admittance test, one that you are doomed to fail? It is God’s plan to tempt you with pleasures of the flesh, knowing that you will sin. But he also sent you redemption, by having his only born son, whom he loved beyond measure, killed in a most agonizing way to atone for your sins. And if you believe that… then I’ve got some energy stock that might interest you.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by fatherphil
that's not to say that things are completely different now that i have accepted Christ, for i still face struggles, but rather i have a sense of peace in my tormented soul that in many ways my battle is over and the victory is already won.

That sounds awful!! Who the hell would want to be in a mental state like that?
Tormented soul???!!! Battle?? Victory?!
You sound like alcoholic clutching a cocktail shaker. Are you all right? Are you saddled with an addictive personality? :confused:

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by fatherphil
i have a sense of peace in my tormented soul that in many ways my battle is over and the victory is already won.

I have a sense of peace because I have no sense of battle.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by mark9950
It seems to me that this God character should have never made sin pleasureable in the first place if he did not want us to do it.

Because pleasure IS a sin. ;)

[Magus55]

Sin feels good because it appeals to the flesh. Why is junk food good, when we know it leads to obesity, and health problems, and isn't good for you?

[Demigawd]

Originally posted by Magus55
Sin feels good because it appeals to the flesh.

Well, we are made of physical things. Bits of blood here, skin there, bones all inside sort of thing. The religious connotations of flesh are a rather simplistic understanding of our existence as so-called sapient animals.

Why is junk food good, when we know it leads to obesity, and health problems, and isn't good for you?

Well, way back when humans were hunter-gatherers, fat gained from prey was a desirable thing, particularly in the colder climates. Now that a considerable amount of humans sit behind desks, computers, machinery, vehicles all day to make a living, the energy doesn't get burned off. Therefore, you get alot of out-of-shape people.

It's how we evolved. Not perfect, but then again nothing is.

[Biff the unclean]

Speaking for myself, I never sin.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Magus55
Sin feels good because it appeals to the flesh.

No, no, you got that backwards. Sin appeals to the flesh because it feels good. No wait, um. Sin feels flesh because it appeals to good. No, that's not it... Umm... Sin is good to the flesh because it feels. Yeah, that's it.

You know you just said "A because A", right? Or do you want to argue that "appeals to the flesh" means something other than "it feels good?" ;)

Not much of an answer is it?

[Opera Nut]

So read www.perkel.com/

We are here because our ancestors had sex. People with no sex drive tend to not leave descendants. So that's why we're horny. Natural selection. The technical answer is testosterone, in both genders.

I'm not saying sex in any form is right or wrong. Just pointing out a simple fact. And that state sanctioned screwing license doesn't make any difference in the physical pleasure, no matter how much the religious types want to make a big deal out of it.

[Doctor X]

You had to WANNA!! And "wanna" was a sin all by itself.

It was a sin to wanna feel up Ellen!
It was a sin to plan to feel up Ellen!
It was a sin to ask Ellen to feel up Ellen!
It was a sin to meet Ellen to feel up Ellen!
It was a sin to take Ellen to the place to feel up Ellen!
And it was a sin to feel up Ellen!

SIX sins in ONE feel, man!

George Carlin, Class Clown--to the best of my recollection.

Anyways, "sin" in the NT texts is more of a harmetia or "missing the mark" . . . another concept is "stumbling." It is failing to do the appropriate thing.

Fine. By whose criteria? Return to the OT, and a "sin" may be not trying to knock-up your brother's wife or killing every last woman and child in a city.

--J.D.

[sakrilege]

Originally posted by Magus55
Sin feels good because it appeals to the flesh. Drinking a glass of ice water on a hot humid day appeals to my flesh, is it a sin then? Anything with pleasure is a sin?

[sakrilege]

Originally posted by mark9950
It seems to me that this God character should have never made sin pleasureable in the first place if he did not want us to do it. What is funny to me is the homobigots who consider sodomy disgusting but still think of it as a sin. Like Magus said, sin appeals to the flesh so why isn't he fighting off the urge to screw every male that walks by.

[long winded fool]

"If it feels good, do it," is a sinful philosophy. This doesn't mean that all things that feel good are sins. This doesn't mean that all sins feel good to all people. The reason something is sinful is because it elevates physical sensation above rational thought. Sinning is merely acting on instinct without using one's gift of reason. "Come, let us reason together..." -God, Isaiah 1:18.

'The Mark of the Beast' may be simply following instinct over reason like an animal or a "beast." Temporary pleasure cannot willfully be sacrificed against instinct for permanent future pleasure by anything incapable of reason. To follow instinct is to chase temporary pleasures and flee from the perpetual discomforts of life without God/reason. Missing the mark is failing to think critically. Do I love this person enough to risk giving them my child? Is the satisfaction of a cyclical hormonal function more rationally important than the risk of damaging my partner or myself psychologically if not physically? Aren't all biological functions fundamentally designed to propagate the species by preserving the individual? If what I am doing is not working to preserve my continued existence and thereby propagate the species, isn't my behavior fundamentally irrational? Wouldn't my consciousness be better spent doing something that does work to preserve the survival of the species?

Acting on instinct without filtering it through reason, and thereby controlling/eliminating it, is a sin because it is detrimental to the survival of humanity. War does more harm than good, and war is acting on the instinct of fear without using rational thought. Overpopulation does more harm than good, and overpopulation results from acting on the instinct of lust without first using rational thought to predict the consequences of our intense but temporary pleasures. If sexuality were reserved for official, church sanctioned marriage and the bringing of a loving and productive family into the world as is championed by Christianity, overpopulation would not be a problem. While this may not be practically achievable in today's society, it is ultimately desirable.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by sakrilege
What is funny to me is the homobigots who consider sodomy disgusting but still think of it as a sin. Like Magus said, sin appeals to the flesh so why isn't he fighting off the urge to screw every male that walks by.
He (generic homobigot, not magus) probably is.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
If sexuality were reserved for official, church sanctioned marriage and the bringing of a loving and productive family into the world as is championed by Christianity, overpopulation would not be a problem.

That depends on the version of Christianity. Certain churches consider the use of birth control to be sinful; if everyone believed that and acted on it, enough children would be born that overpopulation might very well be a problem.

[Darth Dane]

Love God and do what you want - St. Augustine






DD - Love & Laughter

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
That depends on the version of Christianity. Certain churches consider the use of birth control to be sinful; if everyone believed that and acted on it, enough children would be born that overpopulation might very well be a problem.

Very true. This is why it's impractical. Because not everyone believes sexuality should be reserved for marriage and the raising of a healthy and productive family, "artificial" birth control is a necessity. If everyone did believe this, then birth control could be accomplished through reason and will alone. It would be nice if everyone had enough will power and wisdom to follow reason above instinct and thereby not sin. Since they don't, we have to 'corral our mess' so to speak and protect ourselves from the consequences of our instincts after the fact using artificial means of birth control. Being against birth control is unreasonable. Praising intellectual birth control over physical birth control is reasonable, since intellectual birth control is an unlimited resource.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by mark9950

It seems to me that this God character should have never made sin pleasureable in the first place if he did not want us to do it.


It wasn't god that decided it would be a sin, though was it?

Originally posted by long winded fool
If sexuality were reserved for official, church sanctioned marriage and the bringing of a loving and productive family into the world as is championed by Christianity, overpopulation would not be a problem

Actually, if you think about that for two seconds, it would be a more effective population control to try and limit all sex to purely anal ;)
The fact is, the Christian church has traditionally encouraged it's followers to outbreed competing religions. Hence proscription of non-reproductive sexual practices.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Love God and do what you want - St. Augustine






DD - Love & Laughter

If we love God we will be censored by natural law and will not be torn between good and evil nor will we be tempted by the concept sin.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Amos
If we love God we will be censored by natural law and will not be torn between good and evil nor will we be tempted by the concept sin.


Obviously then: I must not love God because I sin an constantly.

Especially last Tuesday.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Because not everyone believes sexuality should be reserved for marriage and the raising of a healthy and productive family, "artificial" birth control is a necessity. If everyone did believe this, then birth control could be accomplished through reason and will alone.

And if everyone believed that children were a gift from god and their conception was never to be prevented - a concept that certain groups justify using the bible - there would be a similar overpopulation problem, which is my point. Whether it's practical wasn't the issue.

Moreover, I don't see any reasoning in reserving sexuality for the raising of a family. I don't intend to have children, but I nevertheless plan to enjoy marital sex, and to that end, birth control will be used. I see no wrong in this, nor do I see anything wrong in people deciding to limit the sizes of their families and using "physical" birth control. If there's any superiority in the rhythm method or the withdrawal method, I'd like to see some evidence of it.

Being against birth control is unreasonable.

To the people who believe in filling their quivers, being for birth control is more than unreasonable, it's ungodly.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by andy_d
Actually, if you think about that for two seconds, it would be a more effective population control to try and limit all sex to purely anal

The fact is, the Christian church has traditionally encouraged it's followers to outbreed competing religions. Hence proscription of non-reproductive sexual practices.

Well, church tradition is only an authority for Catholics. Nowhere in the Bible, which is the basis for Christianity, are Christians admonished to outbreed non-Christians.

And limiting all sex to anal would limit population growth, however one must ask: What is the cause of overpopulation? It is not just reproduction in general, because without this we'd have a far worse problem on our hands. It is unchecked reproduction. The cause of unchecked reproduction is the animal tradition of giving in to instincts without the use of reason. While limiting sex to non-reproductive practices is a step in the right direction as far as controlling a population explosion, it does very little to encourage the use of reason over instict, which would be the most effective form of population control. Anal sex is still indulging in instinct, it merely causes less harm on the whole. (Well... never mind! :p )

I think it's comparable to being a private bigot as opposed to a public bigot. While less harm comes to society if you keep your bigotry private, you are still indulging in your basic instinct of fear. This is what ought to be attacked ideally. Of course, as I said before, it is virtually impossible to make any kind of rules about this in a free society, and rightly so. All one can do is be a good role model and hope that people are wise enough to keep from devolving back into animals with strong instincts of blind self-preservation and with a very weak ability to reason and see the instincts for their natural purpose.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
And if everyone believed that children were a gift from god and their conception was never to be prevented - a concept that certain groups justify using the bible - there would be a similar overpopulation problem, which is my point. Whether it's practical wasn't the issue.


Of course, the problem would only be there if everyone believed that children were a gift from God and their conception should never be prevented, but did not believe that sexuality should be reserved for the raising of a healthy and productive family. Were both of these things to coexist, there would be no population problem. An environment full of healthy and productive families is a balanced environment and there'd be no need for the artificial prevention of conception. The belief in the above would be enough. Yes this is utopian, but it is true.

Because people largely don't believe these things, it is necessary to take other measures. I don't think that it is wise, however, to forget about the ideals. We can still promote safe sex and other artificial forms of birth control while understanding the ideal situation and how far we are from it. We should not be dishonest with ourselves and insist that things which are less wrong than other things are right. Moving in the direction of "less wrong" is good. Making "less wrong" our ultimate goal is not. There are more immediate things to worry about than voluntarily limiting sexuality to the raising of a healthy and productive family, however the ideals shouldn't disappear in the face of our current inability to achieve them.

[fatherphil]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
You sound like alcoholic clutching a cocktail shaker. Are you all right? Are you saddled with an addictive personality? :confused:

i don't know, define addictive personality.


i know i like the thinks i like and can have a tendency to want more and more of whatever it is i enjoy.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Amos
Obviously then: I must not love God because I sin an constantly.

Especially last Tuesday.

Sorry folks, this is an inside joke.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Were both of these things to coexist, there would be no population problem.

There would be a population problem simply because people would be having far too many children.

An environment full of healthy and productive families is a balanced environment and there'd be no need for the artificial prevention of conception.

An environment full of healthy and reasonable families would still need to prevent excessive or inappropriate conception.

Because people largely don't believe these things, it is necessary to take other measures. I don't think that it is wise, however, to forget about the ideals.

That would depend on what the ideals were, and who had the privilege of defining them.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Acting on instinct without filtering it through reason, and thereby controlling/eliminating it, is a sin because it is detrimental to the survival of humanity.

So if I flinch reflexively when someone throws a punch at my face, I have sinned?

If I cry OUCH when burned, I have sinned?

[andy_d]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Well, church tradition is only an authority for Catholics. Nowhere in the Bible, which is the basis for Christianity, are Christians admonished to outbreed non-Christians.


Firstly, Catholics make up about half of all Christians. You can't just write them off. They're by far the biggest and most important sect.

IIRC the Bible doesn't mention anything about a Holy Trinity, either. Is there no such thing?

There's far more to Christianity then just the Bible.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords

There would be a population problem simply because people would be having far too many children.

An environment full of healthy and reasonable families would still need to prevent excessive or inappropriate conception.


Only if they didn't believe that sexuality should be reserved for raising a healthy and productive family. It is impossible to raise a healthy and productive family in an unhealthy and unproductive environment. This is the outcome of overpopulation. Animals usually require predators in order to keep the population balanced. Humans theoretically need no predators because they can keep their population balanced with intellect. We just choose not to and prey on our neighbors.

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
That would depend on what the ideals were, and who had the privilege of defining them.

I would hope the ideals would be chosen by reason and intellect and not by blind instinct! ;) This is the point of my argument.

Originally posted by andy_d
There's far more to Christianity then just the Bible.

The crux of the matter. What is a Christian? A follower of the teachings of Jesus, or a follower of the teachings of Christianity? Shouldn't they be the same?

Originally posted by Autonemesis
So if I flinch reflexively when someone throws a punch at my face, I have sinned?

If I cry OUCH when burned, I have sinned?

Yes. :)

If I may be so bold, I think you are taking a negative connotation from the word 'sin' as most people do. Sinning is missing the mark. When I read the Bible, I take this to mean failing to think critically and objectively. Nobody is rational 100% of the time. It is impossible not to sin at some point. The Bible says "all have sinned." I can fail to think objectively and my body will still act in a way that it feels will ensure my personal survival. Sometimes it is correct, (irrational flinching) sometimes it is not, (irrational hatred.) When my instinctive actions no longer ensure my survival as is too often the case, my reason must change them. Failing to control the instincts with reason is sinning.

It is theoretically conceivable, though maybe not actually possible, that a human could replace instinct with lightning fast reasoning ability. Flinching could theoretically be a reasoned response to an object approaching your eye. While humans rely on instinct, a "sinless being" would make nothing but rational choices in place of animal impulse. Therefore the injunction, "don't sin" is really an injunction to control the instincts and essentially to love your brother despite your animal impulses. Bringing a life into the world that you can't support and taking resources from someone else is not loving your brother because it results from indulgence in instinct and not rational decision.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Only if they didn't believe that sexuality should be reserved for raising a healthy and productive family.

Let me get this straight : a healthy man and woman only have sex when they want a child? At other times, what do they do - sleep in separate beds?

I would hope the ideals would be chosen by reason and intellect and not by blind instinct!

Reason and intellect tell me that there is no need to limit sex to the production of offspring.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Let me get this straight : a healthy man and woman only have sex when they want a child? At other times, what do they do - sleep in separate beds?

How do you want me to answer this? Are we still being objective and critical? Obviously, if a healthy man and woman controlled instinct with reason and believed that sexuality ought to be reserved for raising healthy children, there'd be no need to sleep in separate beds.

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Reason and intellect tell me that there is no need to limit sex to the production of offspring.

But you agree that there is reason to limit sex to non-destructive purposes, correct? (At least a personal, rational limit?) From here, sex and fear become analogous. Instinct should logically be limited to the point where it fulfills its purpose of ensuring survival of the species. Every biologist knows that instinct doesn't always fulfill this purpose. Predators prevent overpopulation, which would occur without them due to instincts. (As humans have so obediently proven.) Without natural predators, there is no other choice but to use reason. (Or die and take a good portion of the environment with you.)

Fear is a very necessary instinct, yet most agree that it should be limited. Where do we draw the line? If we are being practical, it is wherever we possibly can where it will cause the least amount of damage. We can't censor people's thoughts. We can't outlaw racism as a personal belief. This is a good thing. Nonetheless, we ought to frown upon racism as a personal belief and encourage reason to be used instead of reliance on the instinct of fear. So it is with sex. To say otherwise is a double standard. "This perfectly natural and useful instinct is good and this one is bad." They're both equal and they're neither good nor bad. Not using reason and harming yourself or someone else with your instincts is bad.

Even if you aren't harming someone else, you may be harming yourself simply by not being rational. "I hate such and such race, but I'll never tell anyone." Who is harmed? Depending on your definition of harm, you could say no one. Everyone should have the right to this attitude. The attitude is irrational, however. (And, in my personal opinion, all irrational beliefs harm the holder.) The label still applies even if the holder of the belief prefers his or her instincts to objective critical analysis. We learn this preference as children and some of us never learn otherwise.

"Celebrate your natural, biological instincts, but don't celebrate hatred and violence!" Unfortunately, hatred and violence are natural biological instincts. Both sexual drive and fear serve the same purpose. Now, on what basis do we discriminate? Reason and intellect tell us to examine each case to see what harm is caused. If you believe that merely having irrational fear and never acting on it still causes some degree of harm to the holder, I don't see how you can take irrational sexual drive out of the equation. (And I mean "irrational," not "unnatural." There are plenty of harmful yet perfectly natural things. To desire one may be irrational, but it is entirely understandable. Instinct is a powerful drive. I don't know that it is ultimately more powerful than reason, however.)

[andy_d]

Originally posted by long winded fool

The crux of the matter. What is a Christian? A follower of the teachings of Jesus, or a follower of the teachings of Christianity? Shouldn't they be the same?


They absolutely should. But they ain't.

As the famous quote from Gandhi goes:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
How do you want me to answer this?

By giving a practical way in which people can limit conception without using birth control.

Are we still being objective and critical?

Were "we" objective in the first place?

Obviously, if a healthy man and woman controlled instinct with reason

Something they wouldn't need to do if they used birth control, since then they could satisfy their instinct and their reason at the same time.

and believed that sexuality ought to be reserved for raising healthy children, there'd be no need to sleep in separate beds.

You mean that they should sleep in the same bed and yet not touch, and whenever they felt any kind of desire they should perhaps read some bible verses in order to stifle it?

But you agree that there is reason to limit sex to non-destructive purposes, correct?

How do you define non-destructive purposes?

(At least a personal, rational limit?)

My personal rational limit is to have whatever sexual experiences I like as long as I'm not physically harming myself or others.

Instinct should logically be limited to the point where it fulfills its purpose of ensuring survival of the species.

My goal in life is not the survival of the species. If someone else wants to make that their purpose, they're welcome to do so, but I don't see why it should be mine. Therefore, my instincts aren't limited to this goal either.

Without natural predators, there is no other choice but to use reason.

And my reason says that there is nothing wrong with birth control. You have shown no evidence in contradiction.

<snip interminable analogy>

Both sexual drive and fear serve the same purpose.

Both sexual drive and fear could be acting in such a way as to eventually take us to Jupiter for all I cared. It would not change my position that my sexuality exists for pleasure, that I can choose what my sexuality exists for - rather than simply assuming that I had to raise a family, and that there is nothing wrong with the use of birth control.

[long winded fool]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Many people like the idea that anger and hatred exist for a purpose and won't abandon those either. When you ask to define "not-destructive" you are already assuming that instinct is not to be stifled by reason. Not caring about consequences is natural. Caring about consequences gets in the way of indulging instinctual drives. This is a common opinion that any are welcome to hold. It unfortunately is objectively not a rational opinion, however. Because we like something along with all our friends, or hate something along with all our friends, doesn't suddenly make the like or dislike rational. Natural, yes. Rational, no. Natural doesn't ensure survival, it merely promotes it. Without predators, it becomes detrimental to survival. Reason does ensure survival barring unavoidable natural disaster.

If one does not care about the well being of members of one's own species, then one can indulge the instincts without guilt or care and maybe even become a predator of his own race in order to naturally keep the population of one's neighbors down. This is effective population control. If we won't give up our instincts for reason, we must kill each other. There is no other option. Yes, birth control is practical and evidences care for others on the part of those who promote it. Until they recognize that a perfectly natural instinct is the root of the problem, they are effectively postponing the inevitable. Giving aspirin to the cancer patient.

It is a double standard to promote irrational response to sexual drive and not irrational response to the fight or flight response. "Have sex, but don't have babies" is the same as saying, "Be deathly afraid of anyone different from you, but never act on those fears." Yes this will temporarily alleviate pressure and this is a good thing, however, it will never cure anything. This is bad. Attempting to forcibly control people's thoughts is bad. Attempting to reason with people to make them better critical thinkers is good. I promote only the latter, so there's no need to get defensive. :) Nobody's going to outlaw sex or fear. I'm merely pointing out the absolute ideal situation and showing why it manifests without instinct, contrary to popular belief. Utopia is not possible with instinct. As long as there is instinct, there is violence and death. Predators must exist either in animal or human form. Without them and with the presence of instinct, we'd probably be long dead.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Not caring about consequences is natural.

Since when?

Can you support this "fact"? I hope so, because otherwise your argument starts to look a bit wobbly.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Many people like the idea that anger and hatred exist for a purpose and won't abandon those either.

What exactly does this have to do with the points under discussion?

When you ask to define "not-destructive" you are already assuming that instinct is not to be stifled by reason.

If that's what you want to think I'm doing. When I ask for the definition of a term, it's so that I understand exactly what the person using that term means. But by all means, make assumptions about what I think.

Not caring about consequences is natural.

Caring about consequences is natural. There you go, one good unsupported assertion deserves another. We can play that game all through the rest of your post.

Caring about consequences gets in the way of indulging instinctual drives.

Caring about consequences does not mean that instincts cannot be indulged.

Reason does ensure survival barring unavoidable natural disaster.

And my reason tells me that there's nothing wrong in using birth control.

If we won't give up our instincts for reason, we must kill each other.

If we won't give up our instincts for reason, we must sleep with each other. Make love, not war.

There is no other option.

Yes, there is. We could all eat ice cream.

Yes, birth control is practical and evidences care for others on the part of those who promote it.

Good, finally something I agree with.

Until they recognize that a perfectly natural instinct is the root of the problem,

Until they realize that that a perfectly natural instinct is not a problem at all.

they are effectively postponing the inevitable.

What's the inevitable? That by giving in to their desires, they'll end up killing each other?

Giving aspirin to the cancer patient.

Giving ice cream to the people who like ice cream.

It is a double standard to promote irrational response to sexual drive and not irrational response to the fight or flight response.

First show why having sex while using birth control is irrational.

"Have sex, but don't have babies" is the same as saying, "Be deathly afraid of anyone different from you, but never act on those fears."

"Have sex, but don't have babies if you don't want to" is the same as saying, "Read books, but don't start writing one if you don't want to."

Yes this will temporarily alleviate pressure and this is a good thing, however, it will never cure anything.

I'm not sure how having babies is supposed to "cure anything".

Attempting to reason with people to make them better critical thinkers is good. I promote only the latter, so there's no need to get defensive.

Attempting to use analogies when someone is asking for evidence is feeble. And rest assured that there's very little here for anyone to feel defensive against.

Utopia is not possible with instinct.

Utopia is possible with instinct.

As long as there is instinct, there is violence and death.

Depends on the type of instinct. But if this is how you feel, I can certainly understand the fear of instinct - though not the lack of any practical solutions to the questions I asked about couples who do not use birth control and yet may need to limit conception.

Now I'm going to have some ice cream.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by andy_d
Since when?

Can you support this "fact"? I hope so, because otherwise your argument starts to look a bit wobbly.

Well, my argument is not built on this one single quote, however foreseeing consequences against instinctive drives is a product of self-awareness and reasoning. Animals don't think about consequences in the same way that humans do. Many don't 'think' at all beyond programmed reaction. Reaction to instinct without reason is natural. Stifling instinct and reacting to critical analysis is also natural for humans, but it is obviously not instinctive.

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Caring about consequences does not mean that instincts cannot be indulged.

I agree. It means that instincts with negative consequences should not be indulged.

And my reason tells me that there's nothing wrong in using birth control.

Mine too. :)

Until they realize that that a perfectly natural instinct is not a problem at all.

Do you have a problem with caucasian people who shun those with black skin? This is a perfectly natural instinct. It is the fight or flight response. If you truly believe the above quote, then either attacking or fleeing from what you don't understand is no problem at all. As soon as you say that you ought to try to understand what you are attacking or fleeing from, you promote the use of reason over the indulgence of instinct and make yourself a hypocrite.

What's the inevitable? That by giving in to their desires, they'll end up killing each other?

By giving in to their desires without using their brains, they'll create more people than their environment can handle and they'll be forced to spread. Eventually, inevitable mass death (often in the form of war) must take place. Then the cycle starts over. Animals experience this and get around mass death with natural predators. We must create our own against our better judgment (but not nature's better judgment) which we build up and add to until we can no longer contain them and then weep when we are crushed underneath them.

First show why having sex while using birth control is irrational.

Because the purpose of the sexual drive is the propagation of the species. Yes, there are countless other uses for the act. There is one purpose. Animals mate because mating animals outbreed the ones who don't. Yes, mating is good. Mating is also first and foremost for the reproduction of the species. Birth control is an effective way to keep the species from reproducing. This takes the form of predators and hunters for animals. It takes the form of condoms and starvation for humans. We can and should decide to reproduce only when reproduction will not harm the environment. Birth control is a way to accomplish this. There is birth control which is almost 100% effective and almost affordable by all sexually active humans, (the ones left over controlled by more violent and/or unsanitary methods) which encourages the indulgence of instinct without rational analysis with the birth control as an afterthought, and there is free birth control that is 100% effective which helps to discourage others from indulgence in instinct without rational analysis. If my celebration of sex with birth control causes someone else to forget about the birth control, aren't I adding to the problem? Yes, it's their problem, but it is also mine because I am fanning the flames that ultimately lead to death and unhappiness. The attitude of sucking up as much happiness as we can while we're alive at the expense of others is selfish and spreads itself like a plague because all humans are animals with instinctual drives. If sacrificing luxury (and it is a luxury) can help bring about a more rational and understanding society, luxury ought to be sacrificed. At least in my opinion.

"Have sex, but don't have babies if you don't want to" is the same as saying, "Read books, but don't start writing one if you don't want to."

How? I gave evidence for my comparison, you simply make unsupported assertions.

Utopia is possible with instinct.

I did you the courtesy of explaining myself, now please explain this. Show me how this could logically be possible.

LWF:As long as there is instinct, there is violence and death.

QoS:Depends on the type of instinct.

So you do think that some instincts are good and some are bad? On what do you base this? How do you draw the line? "We should lose these instincts here, but celebrate these here." Doesn't the line you draw come from your ability to reason? If so, why would you then shun reason in this example and advocate instinct? Because you like this particular instinct? Some people like to indulge instincts that you don't like. How can you ever find fault with their behavior without being hypocritical?

You use reason to decide when to indulge instinct and when not to. I am showing logically where this eventually must lead. Either to instinct driven animals with obsolete reasoning ability, or reason driven humans with obsolete instincts. You can't logically end up with both. Eventually, the instinct/reason duality must terminate because they are in evolutionary conflict. Instincts are no longer beneficial to the species once overpopulation sets in, however without them we'd die as infants. Reason is a way out. I suggest that we will one day take it or else our young civilization will collapse as all others on Earth have and we will start over again from scratch. Or, perhaps the earth will become uninhabitable. I see only these three possibilities. If there is a fourth, I'd love to hear it.

If you think that I am not being reasonable, please elaborate and point out my errors and don't make broad, close-minded assertions even if they are more comfortable than critical analysis. Instead of "I'm obviously right you idiot because everyone agrees with me, except for wrong people," let's try "Ignoring conditioned responses and preconceived notions, let's see what is logically the case."

[andy_d]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Reaction to instinct without reason is natural.

Not for humans it isn't.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by andy_d
Not for humans it isn't.

Sure it is. Natural doesn't mean instinctive, though instincts are natural. Reason is an auxiliary adaptation that exists alongside instinct, and not necessarily an "improvement" from an evolutionary point of view. (Evolutionary adaptations can only be considered an improvement after the fact. Hopefully, one day the species will be able to look back and label the evolution of sapience an improvement over blind instinct.) Both serve the same function at the moment. When reason is not used, instinct takes over. Either way you go, you are doing what comes naturally. Because reason allows us to "outguess" our instincts, it is wise, but not instinctive, to refuse our instincts when we objectively perceive that they're detrimental.

Instincts are natural. 'Natural' in this instinctive context isn't always best from the subjective standpoint of a given species. It is natural to fear the unknown. It is natural to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. It is reasonable and also objectively natural, but not instinctive, to endure temporary pain for future pleasure. This goes against instinct, yet it is a natural adaptive behavior for a self-aware species, assuming it better ensures the survival of the species. Since reason has the potential to be a better system of survival than instinct, it is logical to use it before instinct. It is still a natural tendency to trust the instincts, however.

It hasn't been all that long on an evolutionary scale since we were living in trees and relying solely on our instincts. Millions of years of habituation is a difficult thing to suppress, but the time is rapidly approaching where a species of animal with no natural predators must effectively stop reproducing itself for at least a while. With instinct, this must occur by mass death in the form of starvation by consuming every last resource, tribal warfare, or the introduction of some effective predator. (And if the species survives the catastrophic blow to its population, the cycle will repeat.) With reason and wisdom this could occur with rational choice, and mass death (only called "tragedy" by the overpopulated species who suffers it) could be averted and the cycle permanently broken. Theoretically. At this point in human history, the latter seems a sadly improbable road. Instinct is too ingrained and reason too difficult to utilize, I suppose.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Do you have a problem with caucasian people who shun those with black skin? This is a perfectly natural instinct.

Even if I accepted your assertion that that was a natural instinct, one of those instincts harms people, the other doesn't.

It is the fight or flight response.

Evidence for your assertion?

As soon as you say that you ought to try to understand what you are attacking or fleeing from, you promote the use of reason over the indulgence of instinct and make yourself a hypocrite.

Do I really? How?

By giving in to their desires without using their brains, they'll create more people than their environment can handle

All the more reason to use their brains and use birth control.

and they'll be forced to spread. Eventually, inevitable mass death (often in the form of war) must take place.

All the more reason to use birth control.

Because the purpose of the sexual drive is the propagation of the species. Yes, there are countless other uses for the act. There is one purpose.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not a slave to my sexual drive. It doesn't determine its own purpose. I determine its purpose.

We can and should decide to reproduce only when reproduction will not harm the environment. Birth control is a way to accomplish this.

In complete agreement so far.

There is birth control... which encourages the indulgence of instinct without rational analysis

It takes rational analysis to use the birth control in the first place.

there is free birth control that is 100% effective which helps to discourage others from indulgence in instinct without rational analysis.

In other words, there is free repression of emotion and desire, though no practical method has thus far been specified as to how exactly the sexual drive should be tamped down.

If my celebration of sex with birth control causes someone else to forget about the birth control, aren't I adding to the problem?

If my reading of The Pirate's Pleasure causes someone else to feel desire that they have resolutely been suppressing, aren't I adding to the problem? Perhaps all romantic literature, films and pictures should be banned?

Yes, it's their problem, but it is also mine

If you want to make yourself responsible for what other people think, go ahead. I can't see myself doing the same.

because I am fanning the flames that ultimately lead to death and unhappiness.

Because I am fanning the flames that ultimately lead to happiness and freedom.

The attitude of sucking up as much happiness as we can while we're alive at the expense of others is selfish

The attitude of martyring one's thoughts to the benefit of others is that of a doormat.

and spreads itself like a plague because all humans are animals with instinctual drives.

and spreads itself like a plague because some humans are indoctrinated in the art of self-eradication.

If sacrificing luxury (and it is a luxury) can help bring about a more rational and understanding society, luxury ought to be sacrificed. At least in my opinion.

If forcing yourself to stop feeling a natural desire (that harms no one) is required for a "more rational and understanding society", that society must be the Republic of Gilead.

How? I gave evidence for my comparison, you simply make unsupported assertions.

Having sex is enjoyable and fast. Having a baby is less so.

I did you the courtesy of explaining myself, now please explain this. Show me how this could logically be possible.

There was no logic in your version of utopia; why should there be logic in mine?

So you do think that some instincts are good and some are bad? On what do you base this? How do you draw the line?

Some instincts do not hurt anyone. Some do. That's the line.

"We should lose these instincts here, but celebrate these here." Doesn't the line you draw come from your ability to reason?

You seem to be postulating a false dichotomy between instinct and reason. I don't see why one should exist.

Some people like to indulge instincts that you don't like. How can you ever find fault with their behavior without being hypocritical?

It depends what the instinct is, and whether it hurts anyone.

You use reason to decide when to indulge instinct and when not to. I am showing logically where this eventually must lead.

I don't see any logic in your reply.

Either to instinct driven animals with obsolete reasoning ability, or reason driven humans with obsolete instincts. You can't logically end up with both.

Why not?

Eventually, the instinct/reason duality must terminate because they are in evolutionary conflict.

Why are they in evolutionary conflict?

Instincts are no longer beneficial to the species once overpopulation sets in, however without them we'd die as infants.

Depends on the type of instinct.

If you think that I am not being reasonable, please elaborate and point out my errors and don't make broad, close-minded assertions

You mean only you get to make those, not me?

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Even if I accepted your assertion that that was a natural instinct, one of those instincts harms people, the other doesn't.

I've shown why the other does. Populations generally follow a sigmoid (or "S") curve graphically. Maximum reproduction is only beneficial on the underside (or concave portion) of the S. It becomes detrimental in the upper or convex portion. The lower portion of the graph denotes underpopulation. The upper area overpopulation. Humans are overpopulated. Therefore the instinct to reproduce harms people. (Hence the label 'detrimental.')

It is the fight or flight response.

Evidence for your assertion?

Do you not accept fear being the common designation of the fight or flight response as an axiom?

As soon as you say that you ought to try to understand what you are attacking or fleeing from, you promote the use of reason over the indulgence of instinct and make yourself a hypocrite.

Do I really? How?

By promoting reason over instinct in one case and the reverse in another.

By giving in to their desires without using their brains, they'll create more people than their environment can handle

All the more reason to use their brains and use birth control.

My point exactly. Birth control is required if we want to avert cataclysm. The purpose of the sex drive is reproduction, if we are being scientific. (Of course, its purpose could be something entirely different if we are ignoring biology and being emotional.) Reproduction is detrimental in an overpopulated environment. Therefore sex drive is detrimental. To encourage it is irrational.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not a slave to my sexual drive. It doesn't determine its own purpose. I determine its purpose.

No, you determine your purpose. Science determines the purpose of the sexual drive. (At least, for scientific minded people. Religion comes to a similar conclusion, however.) Science may well be wrong, but as of this date, the urge to mate is a long ago evolved instinct designed fundamentally for propogation of the species. Since overpopulation is rare, it is still the best means of ensuring the survival of life in general. Unfortunately, we are one of the rare exceptions, and our desire to mate ironically could wipe out a huge percentage of life on the planet. If we do, maybe life will use some other method of reproduction?

It takes rational analysis to use the birth control in the first place.

Very true. This is why it's a good idea. You keep assuming I'm against birth control when my argument is all for it. I'm simply advocating better birth control, and showing the contradiction in terms of advocating birth control and the indulgence of the urge for sexual intercourse at the same time. The latter is not logical however I don't argue that it is very practical and allows us the best of both worlds for an extremely short ammount of fun, pleasurable, and ridiculously selfish time. This instinct coupled with the short-sighted reasoning of the accepted above argument is what has caused the wild population explosion since the 1800's. Science allowed us to eliminate most of our natural predators and continues to do so. If we don't get our instincts under control, no ammount of science can save us.

In other words, there is free repression of emotion and desire, though no practical method has thus far been specified as to how exactly the sexual drive should be tamped down.

Reason? Understanding? Far-sightedness? Love for our grandchildren? Cold shower?

If my reading of The Pirate's Pleasure causes someone else to feel desire that they have resolutely been suppressing, aren't I adding to the problem? Perhaps all romantic literature, films and pictures should be banned?

Why should anything be banned? Reason is not a legislatable notion. You either use it or you don't. Trying to make someone use reason may get the desired consequences, but will do nothing to enlighten them and allow them to come to see the truth on their own and therefore ensure its survival in generations to come.

Yes, it's their problem, but it is also mine

If you want to make yourself responsible for what other people think, go ahead. I can't see myself doing the same.

That's a shame of it's true, but I think you're just being contrary. I think you would think twice before you'd set a bad example for an impressionable child. This is an example of making yourself responsible for what other people think. If you are against non-violent public racism, you are doing the same. It's not that people are hurt. It's that it's setting a negative precedent that changes the way society thinks about a given thing, should it become popular and commonplace. Setting a good example shouldn't be required. Setting a bad example should be shunned. And it is when the example is identified as bad. Some examples are popularly considered good when, in fact, they are bad. There is historical precedent for this. There is no reason to assume it can never happen again.

Because I am fanning the flames that ultimately lead to happiness and freedom.

Promoting birth control does this. Promoting sex for sex's sake does the opposite for the reasons mentioned previously.

The attitude of martyring one's thoughts to the benefit of others is that of a doormat.

No one's asking for anyone to "martyr their thoughts." The request is merely for rational analysis. Rational analysis as to what ultimately benefits others and promotes the good of humnity in general. Subsequently acting on your conclusions, even if they are temporarily uncomfortable, is courage.

and spreads itself like a plague because some humans are indoctrinated in the art of self-eradication.

There is no real precedent for this. Truly suicidal humans are too few to have a great impact on population. The eradication of humans will not be a conscious choice because the majority of humans want to live as any animal does. The approaching sharp drop in population is an inevitable consequence of overpopulation. All animals are subject to the laws of nature. The instincts are the cause of the human overpopulation, not some shadowy, dubious doctrine of self-hate.

If forcing yourself to stop feeling a natural desire (that harms no one) is required for a "more rational and understanding society", that society must be the Republic of Gilead.

No it mustn't. ;)

Having sex is enjoyable and fast. Having a baby is less so.

False comparison. They are one and the same. Sex merely fails more often than it succeeds. Without conception preventing devices, this is due to the inability of a mother to nurse too many offspring at once. We've evolved a sexual cycle which takes full advantage of fertile females. The only way for humans to reproduce is through sex, (as far as nature is concerned.) Therefore, to reduce reproduction, it is logical to reduce sex. It can be accomplished without this, however, it solves nothing. As long as the instinct is there, humans will act in a way that is detrimental to an already overpopulated species. Preventing the punch in the first place is the rational thing to do, but you're right, cushioning the blow is also rational. It is a shame that humans understand how to put up their dukes to defend themselves, but not to simply use their powerful brains to eliminate the danger in the first place.

There was no logic in your version of utopia; why should there be logic in mine?

So you can teach me what I'm doing wrong in my thinking. Declaring me wrong with no attempt at explanation beyond an assertion, an appeal to popularity, and a close-minded attitude doesn't help either of us. It shows that you believe what is comfortable and have no room for change in your personal philosophy, and it provides me with no contructive criticism or objective feedback. All either one of us can do is conclude that we're right and the other is wrong. I at least have shown that I'm thinking critically about the issue. My version of Utopia is the only version that can logically exist, unless strife and premature death exist in Utopia. Unless humans can be hunted by predators (macro or micro) in Utopia.

Some instincts do not hurt anyone. Some do. That's the line.

But the instinct of reproduction hurts at least as many people as the instinct of fear. Both instincts can hurt people and protect people. That's the nature of instinct. The instinct of reproduction will eventually hurt enough people to reduce the human population to managable levels. This is evident in every overpopulated animal species that humans have ever encountered. It is the apex of naivety to expect humans' fate to be different if we rely on our instincts to see us through and retreat from reason.

You seem to be postulating a false dichotomy between instinct and reason. I don't see why one should exist.

They can coexist as they do now, however reason is objectively a better survival tool if it is availible. If reason is used to its full potential, it will preempt instinct, eventually making it largely obsolete. If instinct takes precedence over reason, humans will overpopulate and then die off in large numbers as all animals do. The cycle will either start over, or it won't. While the former is better than the latter, preemption of the cycle in the first place with rational control is the best.

Some people like to indulge instincts that you don't like. How can you ever find fault with their behavior without being hypocritical?

It depends what the instinct is, and whether it hurts anyone.

Say someone hates hispanics with a vivid passion, however they don't hurt anyone. Is there anything wrong with this belief based on natural basic instinct or is it perfectly fine?

Either to instinct driven animals with obsolete reasoning ability, or reason driven humans with obsolete instincts. You can't logically end up with both.

Why not?

Why are they in evolutionary conflict?

This is what happens in adaptation. The old stuff is discarded for the new, better stuff. Those that don't adapt, die. Humans must adapt to the upper curve of the "S" population graph. If we don't, we'll kill ourselves off, and the survivors, (if any,) will try again.

Instincts are no longer beneficial to the species once overpopulation sets in, however without them we'd die as infants.

Depends on the type of instinct.

Can you think of an instinct that is beneficial to a being capable reason?

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by long winded fool
I've shown why the other does.

Not with evidence, you haven't.

Do you not accept fear being the common designation of the fight or flight response as an axiom?

Show with evidence that a fear of black people is a fight or flight response.

By promoting reason over instinct in one case and the reverse in another.

So does a diet specialist who says "you can have a small piece of chocolate cake once a day as a reward for exercise" become a hypocrite as well?

The purpose of the sex drive is reproduction, if we are being scientific.

And the purpose of the appetite is to provide nutrition to the body. Therefore, someone who eats dessert, basically empty calories, is doing something detrimental. Therefore, to encourage the eating of dessert is irrational.

No, you determine your purpose.

No, I determine its purpose.

Science determines the purpose of the sexual drive.

Not my sexual drive. Yours maybe, if you like it that way.

Unfortunately, we are one of the rare exceptions, and our desire to mate ironically could wipe out a huge percentage of life on the planet.

Not if we use birth control.

You keep assuming I'm against birth control when my argument is all for it.

No, your argument tries to distinguish between "physical" birth control and "non-physical" birth control, with a definite plumping for the latter. That means you have something against "physical" birth control.

I'm simply advocating better birth control,

You haven't shown why it's better.

and showing the contradiction in terms of advocating birth control and the indulgence of the urge for sexual intercourse at the same time.

You have not shown why this is a contradiction, though.

The latter is not logical

The last time I read something like this, it was in a Star Trek fanfic about Mr. Spock.

however I don't argue that it is very practical and allows us the best of both worlds for an extremely short ammount of fun, pleasurable, and ridiculously selfish time.

Eating dessert is also fun and ridiculously selfish, according to this reasoning. I hope you campaign vigorously against people who enjoy dessert.

Besides, I can't see what's selfish about sex if you please your partner at the same time.

This instinct coupled with the short-sighted reasoning of the accepted above argument is what has caused the wild population explosion since the 1800's.

A lack of birth control/education about birth control has caused that population explosion.

Reason? Understanding? Far-sightedness? Love for our grandchildren? Cold shower?

The only practical method you have shown here - after the second time I asked for practical methods - is a cold shower. Are there no other options for suppressing one's base drives?

And I don't plan to have grandchildren, so that's out. Reason tells me that there's nothing wrong in using "physical" birth control. Far-sightedness tells me that using birth control will reduce the number of unwanted children in the world. Understanding tells me that sex is enjoyable, and I'd like to have as much of it as possible.

Why should anything be banned?

That wasn't the point. If causing another person to have sexual desires is wrong, then anything that could cause them to have such desires should be wrong - whether that anything is having sex yourself or romantic literature. You should be as much against romance novels as you are against people having sex for any reason other than baby-making.

That's a shame of it's true, but I think you're just being contrary. I think you would think twice before you'd set a bad example for an impressionable child.

I'm not sure what impressionable children have to do with the type of adult who might be adversely affected by knowing that someone else is having sex just for the fun of it. Rest assured, though, that I'm already setting bad examples for impressionable children by being a feminist atheist, so I would hardly be likely to stifle my honesty in order that someone else could persist in blissful ignorance.

This is an example of making yourself responsible for what other people think.

I am not responsible for what other people think. They are the masters of their own minds and can take responsibility for themselves.

Promoting birth control does this. Promoting sex for sex's sake does the opposite for the reasons mentioned previously.

Promoting sex for the sake of your pleasure and someone else's fans the flames of happiness and freedom, for the reasons mentioned previously.

No one's asking for anyone to "martyr their thoughts."

But you did mention cold showers in order to suppress sexual desire.

Subsequently acting on your conclusions, even if they are temporarily uncomfortable, is courage.

Subsequently crucifying your sexual drive, thinking that this is reasonable, is silly.

There is no real precedent for this. Truly suicidal humans are too few to have a great impact on population.

I didn't say suicide, I said self-eradication - the wiping-out of one's personality and mind.

No it mustn't.

Yes, it must.

False comparison. They are one and the same.

True comparison. They are different.

Sex merely fails more often than it succeeds.

Maybe you're just not doing it right. For me, it succeeds every time.

The only way for humans to reproduce is through sex, (as far as nature is concerned.) Therefore, to reduce reproduction, it is logical to reduce sex.

No, to reduce reproduction, it is logical to keep the good part of sex and do away with the unwanted part.

It can be accomplished without this, however, it solves nothing.

It gives a great deal of pleasure, and solves the problem of how best to fall asleep at night.

Declaring me wrong with no attempt at explanation beyond an assertion,

This whole page is assertions, have you noticed?

an appeal to popularity, and a close-minded attitude doesn't help either of us.

No offence, but I'm not interested in helping you. I just want to see what Vulcanesque things you'll say next.

It shows that you believe what is comfortable and have no room for change in your personal philosophy,

It shows I believe what is correct and my personal philosophy on sex doesn't need changing at this point.

I at least have shown that I'm thinking critically about the issue.

No, you haven't.

My version of Utopia is the only version that can logically exist

No, it isn't.

Some instincts do not hurt anyone. Some do. That's the line.

But the instinct of reproduction hurts at least as many people as the instinct of fear.

So if it hurts you, find a way to prevent it while simultaneously keeping whatever you find good about it.

They can coexist as they do now, however reason is objectively a better survival tool if it is availible. If reason is used to its full potential, it will preempt instinct,

Even the instinct to eat dessert? Man, what a dry, barren world that would be. I think even Spock's world was more fun, at least they had pon farr every seven years.

Say someone hates hispanics with a vivid passion, however they don't hurt anyone. Is there anything wrong with this belief based on natural basic instinct or is it perfectly fine?

Is the bigot hurting anyone? If he isn't, if he treats hispanics fairly and well even though he hates them, there's nothing wrong. Thought isn't a crime - yet.

This is what happens in adaptation. The old stuff is discarded for the new, better stuff.

No, sometimes the old stuff is kept as well. Besides, I don't see why the instinct to have sex should be discarded.

Can you think of an instinct that is beneficial to a being capable reason?

The instinct to have sex, of course. I can't imagine taking cold showers my whole life long, though I realize that they might be quite the luxury on Vulcan.

[andy_d]

Long winded fool: You sound like a very rational person, if not an entirely practical one.

It may be true that people should not have sex because we are overpopulated, but it's not a practical idea. The most effective thing to do is concentrate population control efforts into contraception.

You just ain't never gonna get people stop stop shagging. They like it too much :)

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by andy_d
Long winded fool: You sound like a very rational person, if not an entirely practical one.

It may be true that people should not have sex because we are overpopulated, but it's not a practical idea. The most effective thing to do is concentrate population control efforts into contraception.

You just ain't never gonna get people stop stop shagging. They like it too much :)

This is true. And it's actually not my goal. I like it too. I just also like people to know where they stand in their existence in relation to others and not to be fooled by irrational arguments for the "goodness" of free sex and the like. It isn't good, nor is it bad. Sexuality isn't a magical gift to humans to be celebrated solely for the pleasure it brings us. It is a basic instinct, hard-wired into animals and designed (or, more accurately, 'adapted') for a specific purpose just like fear. I respect people who can see sex for what it is, even though they engage in it. Seeing our problems is the first step towards someday solving them. Denying the problem is a step in the wrong direction. As you say, people aren't just going to drop their instincts. I merely try to encourage people to think critically about why they do what they do and to entertain the probability that "what we all like" will one day have to be sacrificed. We like unrestricted sex and we like large numbers of alive humans. One of these is very likely to be sacrificed at some point in the future. While it is rational to choose to restrict our sexual activity, it is not instinctual, therefore it is more likely that we'll sacrifice a large portion of our species instead, just as irrational animals do.

I suppose the question is: "Which is a greater evil? Losing a huge number of human beings, or losing instincts?" One answer is rationally obvious, yet another is instinctually obvious, as you point out in your response. An interesting commentary on the dual nature of man. We are men and we are animals. If the two are mutually exclusive, as nature seems to be telling us*, one must emerge the victor, or else man must become extinct.

*Men use reason to identify and effectively eliminate individual death due to predation, yet they use instinct to rapidly reproduce, creating an extreme jump in the population graph which must lead to abrupt mass individual death by predation or cataclysm. This is a logical dilemma and extremely detrimental to the ecosystem. One is obsolete and ultimately must go. Is sapience a detrimental adaptation, or is instinct an obsolete survival mechanism?

[premjan]

Religion is rule by the most principled. If you can show that you are more principled than anyone else, you will make a good prophet or holy man.

More principled does not mean that we for some reason need to have lots of principles. Just that if you are an otherwise useless person who wants to show his or her enormous worth, you will practise such enormous self-control that it will give you a right to tell absolutely everyone what it is that they should all be doing. If you succeed in scaring them enough, they will do it.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by long winded fool
If the two are mutually exclusive, as nature seems to be telling us...

Ah, but you see, this is the beauty of population control methods which allow people to indulge their dirty little instincts. There are more choices available to us than simply either/or.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by andy_d
Ah, but you see, this is the beauty of population control methods which allow people to indulge their dirty little instincts. There are more choices available to us than simply either/or.

Maybe. But maybe this is just us scrambling with our intermitent ability to reason to undo the consequences of our naturally compulsive instincts. I don't think reason cleaning up after the damage our instincts cause allows for these two things to be ultimately complimentary, but I could be wrong.

Of course, they must coexist for a period of time as this is how adaptation works. The most probable course of evolutionary events if reason does in fact survive in humanity and instincts (or the consequences of instincts) are brought under its absolute authority, is that the intense sex drive will no longer be beneficial to the species due to its relative inability to produce offspring. Reasoned use of birth control (whatever kind we choose) to manage the environment "artificially," so that we will be free from predation, starvation, etc. will probably cause it to atrophy due to lack of output. This is, of course, the best case scenario, all assuming that reason will be enough to reduce our population without predators or cataclysm even in the face of our natural instinct to reproduce. It still seems unlikely that we have that much time. I do hope that accepted, voluntary birth-control coupled with the encouragement of indulgence in the reproductive act with merely the artificial prevention of reproductive consequence can hit the brakes on our unstoppable collective charge for the edge of the cliff long enough for us to evolve wings. If not, whomever survives the plunge will have to start climbing again.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by andy_d
There are more choices available to us than simply either/or.

Thank you, andy. This is what I've been saying, albeit with more wordage.