Pyxis Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 It doesn't matter what the reason is for why we're drawn together, we are not purely instinctual beings like you suggest. We live in brick houses and visit supermarkets for food. Thus, your reason for denouncing adoption is ridiculous. Men and women are drawn to each other to have sex since this allows the human race to continue. But that's just an attraction that we are free to use in any way we want - e.g. seeing to yourself, or using protection. In fact, that's a great example. If it's all about genetics, and passing on genetic material is the most important thing, then how is it men have no problem wearing condoms? It's simple. We enjoy the pleasurable feeling provided by sex, which primarily exists to cause us to reproduce, but we are by no means forced to pass on our genetics. Your whole 'it's right because it's natural' argument is balls since there are many who go against this (gays for instance). I think your first paragraph is pretty similar to my thoughts. We can exploit things to our own advantage, which is what we do a lot in modern society. As for condoms, I'd say that animals often have lots of babies when there is a lot of food around and don't when there isn't. We wear condoms because we don't have the resources to endlessly produce babies. Wearing a condom is brought around by the same instinct that controls the behaviour of other animals. It is an artificial fix to an artificial problem. Our bodies aren't best evolved for our current way of life... Some things are quite funny, like how our bones are growing faster than our brains. We often have to have teeth removed because our skulls are too small to house them all.:p Our bodies are lagging behind the world we are finding ourselves in, meaning we have to wear condoms, have our teeth pulled out, shave our faces and etc.:p I don't think what I said is insulting to gay people because I think they are programmed a bit differently (I am guessing they think of women like how women think of other women), so their brains aren't telling them to like women in that way. They are probably looking at women and admiring their beauty, like a woman would. I don't know enough to explain what goes through their minds, but they do seem to have some feminine characteristics. I would say that being gay is like being a blood parrot cichlid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_parrot_cichlid An infertile hybrid of two different species. In their case, they are like a mix of both genders and can't really breed yet, but just like the hormone treatment of blood parrot cichlids, modern science will find a solution, like in that Arnold Schwarzenegger film.:awesome:
Sheikah Posted March 20, 2010 Posted March 20, 2010 I think your first paragraph is pretty similar to my thoughts. We can exploit things to our own advantage, which is what we do a lot in modern society. As for condoms, I'd say that animals often have lots of babies when there is a lot of food around and don't when there isn't. We wear condoms because we don't have the resources to endlessly produce babies. Wearing a condom is brought around by the same instinct that controls the behaviour of other animals. It is an artificial fix to an artificial problem. Our bodies aren't best evolved for our current way of life... Some things are quite funny, like how our bones are growing faster than our brains. We often have to have teeth removed because our skulls are too small to house them all.:p Our bodies are lagging behind the world we are finding ourselves in, meaning we have to wear condoms, have our teeth pulled out, shave our faces and etc.:p I don't think what I said is insulting to gay people because I think they are programmed a bit differently (I am guessing they think of women like how women think of other women), so their brains aren't telling them to like women in that way. They are probably looking at women and admiring their beauty, like a woman would. I don't know enough to explain what goes through their minds, but they do seem to have some feminine characteristics. I would say that being gay is like being a blood parrot cichlid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_parrot_cichlid An infertile hybrid of two different species. In their case, they are like a mix of both genders and can't really breed yet, but just like the hormone treatment of blood parrot cichlids, modern science will find a solution, like in that Arnold Schwarzenegger film.:awesome: It feels weird that you're trying to educate me (biology graduate) on science and evolution...especially with made up science and your own conjecture. We have the resources to produce far many more babies than we currently have. In some cases, people choose to have none. Therefore, your theory that condoms somehow are a natural response to limiting ourselves from having children we can't support is false. In actual fact, many people just don't want children, or at least not then. There is no real desire for most to continously pass on our genetics (with each turn of sex) - passing on our genes is a byproduct of our desire to have sex. Thus, we have no problem in doing things that may limit passing on our genetic information, so long as we can still have sex (the pill, condoms, etc.) As amusing as your theory on gay people is, it is absolutely ridiculous and I fail to see any evidence for why gay people would be as you say they are. And if you do try and put scientific knowledge across, pasting a Wikipedia article would not lead to anyone taking you seriously.
Supergrunch Posted March 20, 2010 Posted March 20, 2010 Pyxis, I think your misunderstandings of evolution centre around the incorrect assumption that it's a teleological process. Yes, selection pressures (combined with many other things, like random genetic drift and polymorphism) can combine to produce interesting effects in response to environments, but this doesn't mean there's some kind of grand evolutionary Gaia-type plan that's being followed - in fact, it's quite the opposite.
Jonnas Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 @Pyxis: Humans aren't purely controlled by instinct. This whole ability of being rational allows us to make choices and control our urges. You can rave all you want how our choices are a result of instinct and evolution but, like Supergrunch said, evolution is not a set path, and there is no supernatural force that manages our future based on population and technological advances (which means that no, our instincts aren't collectively telling us to "slow down"). And the point stands for adoption, as well. We're able to make choices, and our feelings aren't set in stone, which means that adopting babies isn't "against nature" or anything, and some do it because they want to give an innocent child a better future.
chairdriver Posted April 15, 2010 Author Posted April 15, 2010 I'm in a really happy mood. I've been listening to the happy songs off J-New's Have One On Me (namely Esme - the most beautiful depiction of non-erotic love) and looking at old photos. I've just taken a step back, and acknowledged how well my life is going at the moment. I'm on a great course, at a very reputable uni which has a lovely atmosphere. And while I don't have a "boyfriend", I have too many friends (as in I don't have enough time to hang out with them all as much as I'd like to), a best friend, a set of "parents" (who I think genuinely care about me) and I'm in a weird-as-fuck relationship with the sweetest boy that I've ever laid eyes upon. I'm more popular than I deserve to be. And I have 3 lovely sisters (and one kinda horrible one... lol) And I'm in a situation where I can just be myself, and I can pierce and ink myself and look like however I want without anyone having any authority over me (apart from my mum, if she disapproved, I'd probably listen to her). And I have money! (I'm actually lending money to my parents at the moment, because they're bankrupt). I'm sorry if this sounds self absorbed - I'm not trying to gloat or boast, I just find writing stuff down which semi-strangers can read and acknowledge kinda therapeutic. I swear I'm not on drugs.
The Bard Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 I've been put in a similiarly jubilant mood by an anthemic tribute to platonic love. Mines slightly...different though: As for drugs; you should be. I'd pay good hard cash to see you high.
chairdriver Posted April 16, 2010 Author Posted April 16, 2010 I've realised I shouldn't be doing maths. It's just the easy option; a means to a comfortable job. I'm good at maths - it was the easiest way into Oxford. But then, I'm "good" at everything, I got As in every exam I ever sat with no effort (apart from, ironically, a B in Additional Maths). And I put in no effort because I just have a pathological inability to sit down and work at anything. Which is fueled by the fact I have nothing in my life to motivate me. But in the past 2 or 3 months, the way I think has really changed. I've thought about things in a way I've never thought before. I've just watched The Hours. Just so many instances which fuel thought. It's straw that broke the camel's back in my decision. It's just so bleak. It's a film about nothing. It's just people's lives. Their boring, banal lives. But that's what life is, a continuum of banality, a thread d'Alembert of trivialities. But then, life is also comprised of discrete moments of gold, which you treasure. Memories I love to remember. When I was 7 or 8, two weeks before we moved away from Germany, a boy moved in next door to us; and for those 2 weeks, we were best friends, climbing trees and playing with Small Soldiers (that shit Dreamworks film where the toy soldiers come to life), and in my innocence and naivety I didn't realise we were moving away, so I never got to say goodbye to him. And eating cornflakes on Calum's roof. Meryl Streep's character from The Hours says: "When I'm with him I feel... Yes, I am living. And when I'm not with him...". Love moves me. I'm just blown by Virginia Woolf. She knew, understood too much. I want to understand too. I can learn facts, I can pass exams easily, but I'm so bad at understanding. I want my life to be more than just knowing what I need to know. I want to understand, I want to help other people understand. I just want to write things. But not in the same way people want to be journalists. I want to just genuinely write down my thoughts on things. But then, I hate the concept of "being a writer". I just want to do things with genuinity. Ultimately I just want to lie in the garden of Eden, away from Shit People. I, having no knowledge of psychiatry, don't know if I'm depressed, or "ill", but I feel so different. I don't think I have the audacity to quit my degree, because that would be spitting in the face of so many people (my tutors especially) and would be such a wasted opportunity, but I just want to... like... do stuff that matters. *trails off* Kindness Prevails. Kindness Prevails.
Ashley Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 I'm in a really happy mood...I've just taken a step back, and acknowledged how well my life is going at the moment. [more]. A few weeks ago I felt really calm. It was the week or two following the twice-in-one-week-fun. and it was a mix of the euphoria of that, the generally nicer weather and things going okay at work (could be in part because it was Easter so it was easier). I just remember everything being okay and while I had worries (like needing to find a job and save at least £3,000 over summer) I didn't feel them. Plus numerous times of late I've just had nice moments where I smile at nature. Like when I'm walking over/by the river and see ducks just...being ducks. Or on Wednesday I saw some birds in aerial combat or a fuzzy caterpillar crawling along the floor. It was just nice seeing nature going about its business. But then, I'm "good" at everything Cunt
chairdriver Posted April 16, 2010 Author Posted April 16, 2010 Plus numerous times of late I've just had nice moments where I smile at nature. Like when I'm walking over/by the river and see ducks just...being ducks. Or on Wednesday I saw some birds in aerial combat or a fuzzy caterpillar crawling along the floor. It was just nice seeing nature going about its business. Taking so many photographs, so amazed We'd never seen a baby so newly born
Ashley Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Taking so many photographs, so amazed We'd never seen a baby so newly born No. Obviously.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 I agree with Karl. (I've run out of thanks. )
Recommended Posts