[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?
> -tomhiggins
How in the heck is that related to the points being made??


More information about the FoRK mailing list