Farren

LWF,

I seem to be posting the same arguments (which address yours) again and again in different formats, and getting the same responses (which largely do not address mine) again and again.

Without intending personal affront or wanting to come across as upset about it, I have to say it seems a bit pointless for both of us to continue. This post serves to proffer my final statements and bid adieu (did I spell that right?)

I suppose I have to qualify why I have a problem with the way you debate an issue, so I'll try focus on that rather than the central principle being debated, by example:

The only way living animals are better than extinct ones is the fact that the living ones are still alive. If you believe that any species instinctively wants to become extinct, I think you are mistaken. Since all species instinctively want to live, and since the strong desire to reproduce no longer furthers this goal, it should be controlled in the same way that the strong desire to be afraid is controlled.


1. Denial of intention while using implicit intention as the basis of your argument. We observe: Species survive, species become extinct. You say: Species "want" to survive, species "don't want" to beome extinct. Then: "Intention is not a requirement of my argument, only a convienient way of expressing things". Then: "How can a species doing what it doesn't want to do be a good thing", in which intention is the crux of the argument.!

Of course there are troughs and peaks. As soon as troughs become detrimental to individual survival, they attain a value judgment of "wrong" by the individual whose survival is threatened. When the peaks become beneficial, they attain the value of a "right" goal. The value judgments come from the species doing the judging only. I don't see how this renders them impotent in the slightest.

2. Outright misunderstanding of what is stated and argument with the misunderstood principle, rather than the one communicated to you:

Landscape analogies discussed here are mathematical descriptions of probability of arriving at point X (liquid flows downhill, balls roll downhill). In most sciences the lowest point is an analogy for the most likely statistical outcome. Neo-darwinist authors like Dawkins invert the landscape and render the ANALOGY invalid, because water does not flow downhill. A "trough" is not a "bad" or "devolved" state, like an economic slump, it is simply an analogy for a likely outcome. Your answer shows that you understood this instinctively as a dip in a species fortunes, clearly illustrating the hidden value judgements you deny, and a lack of care in reading the argument.

Unfortunately, the strong desire to mate in a species with no predators always threatens the survival and prosperity of its habitat.

3. Excessive use of absolutes. I have yet to read a single perr-reviewed scientific study or philosphical essay that uses absolutes without defining the domain of the absolute in vastly more explicit terms, and certainly none that assume the domain in which it is true to be the entire natural world. This is a hallmark of enthuasism triumphing over mental rigor. Another example below. Note no examples, studies vindications cited, just "Its always true cos I say so:

Not true. Without predators it ALWAYS leads to overpopulation.

Contraception has had no effect at curbing the exponential increase of the growth rate of the human population, and is available throughout almost the entire world. I believe the human population of the Earth is expected to double in less than twelve years. Contraception is certainly not enough. Shaking our finger and saying, "Having sex is okay but use protection!" is far less persuasive than saying "Having sex is not okay unless you can raise a healthy child." It may be too late for Lust + education + abstinence to work either, but at least it is a far more effective solution to the problem.


4. An apparent belief in instantaneous cause and effect: "We've had this medicine for 50 of mankinds 2 million odd years on earth, and it hasn't significantly altered the consistent trajectory we've followed over that entire period, so its obviously not going to work". Are you familiar with the statistical concept of having an adequate sample?

Contraception is ridiculously hypocritical. It is an excuse to engage in irrational behavior that is otherwise detrimental to the species and the environment. It is the equivalent of private racism and homophobia. "Since I'm not directly hurting anyone, there's nothing wrong with it." There is something wrong with it. It is failing to be rational. The less rational we are, the worse we are at surviving. It is irrational for a hungry lion to refuse to use his claws, and it is irrational for an overpopulated human society to refuse to use its ability to reason.


5. Mistaking forceful and continuous repitition of your views as logical argument of those views. Its not. Its colloqially called "swamping" people, and it generally serves only to alienate others who want to have meaningful discussion, and puff up the speakers sense of self importance.


Natural selection automatically produces species that always pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Even humans who sacrifice temporary pleasure do so for greater pleasure or less pain down the road. This is, in fact, the motivation of my argument.
(in response to black widow example)


6. Argument by negation. In fact no argument at all. Person A presents argument (Spider in state of terror due to biological imperative). Person B says "You're wrong". Does not cite example. Does not say "This is an alternative interpretation". Just "You're wrong". Very convincing.

Please forgive my sarcasm in some places as I don't intend to attack you personally, only point out my perception of how you discuss things. Some of your views about fear are actually quite interesting but I'd rather just read them and not respond because all atempts at communication break down at a very basic level and no meaningful discourse crosses the divide.

I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong", just "You could be right. If you addressed what I was saying you could even convince me. But you don't"

Respect
Farren

The AntiChris

LWF

Apologies, I'd obviously overlooked this definition.
I have to admit I'm completely overwhelmed by this meticulously crafted example of logical reasoning.
I understand perfectly now.

Chris

Salmon of Doubt

Oops, I forgot this thread was here. I'm replying to your post that was responding to me earlier.

Yes, it is irresponsible if you deliberately set out to create a child without the consent and knowledge of the other person. If you use contraception, however, there is no risk of pregnancy. So there is no consent issue. If you both want the same thing, and it harms no one else then what's wrong with it?

Irrational? Well, if you're only thinking about reproduction, then maybe. But sex is also a way of creating an intimate bond with someone. It's not the only way of doing that, but it's a good way of doing it.

And anyway I was talking about irrationality in regards to fear, not sex. Rationality and harming others is important when you're thinking about fear, but not about sex. Consent is what is important in sex.

No.

Because wanting consensual sex doesn't harm anyone! Not even yourself. Fear can.

OK, leaving biology out of it for a sec and concentrating on morals; No, the idea is

"If it feels good, do it, unless it hurts someone else".

Even if you think sleeping around hurts yourself, that doesn't count, because that's hurting youself not someone else. Having consensual sex with someone feels good and it does not HARM anyone else. So what is morally wrong about that?

If you fear a group of people for no reason, and develop bigotry against them, and discriminate against them or attack them, this harms others, and therefore is morally wrong. Maybe irrationality was a bad argument to use. Arachnophobia, an irrational fear, only harms yourself, so there's nothing morally wrong with arachnophobia. Homophobia can harm other people, so it IS morally wrong.

long winded fool

Because I'm not using a logical argument or because I'm telling you something you don't want to hear? If it's the first, you shouldn't have any trouble refuting me, yet you don't bother. I'm a logical person. If I have failed to listen to reason, please give an example. If you aren't reading my posts solely because I'm of different faith than you, you'll be interested to know that I'm an atheist.

So is your problem with by style of debate only? You do realize that this has nothing to do with the logic of the argument itself?You don't have to persuade me and I have no intention of persuading only you. The logic of the argument is clear, and your refutation is a straw man that indirectly addresses it and attempts to refute it by proving something unrelated. I'll break my argument down below so that you can show me exactly where your argument contradicts the logic of mine.

1. Denial of intention while using implicit intention as the basis of your argument. We observe: Species survive, species become extinct. You say: Species "want" to survive, species "don't want" to beome extinct. Then: "Intention is not a requirement of my argument, only a convienient way of expressing things". Then: "How can a species doing what it doesn't want to do be a good thing", in which intention is the crux of the argument.!

I thought YOUR argument was that evolution doesn't intend that one species survive and another become extinct. I was simply showing that evolution need not intend anything. Humans aren't "destined" to survive by evolution. They intend to survive like all life forms because of evolution. If you believe differently, please cite a relevant example.

Landscape analogies discussed here are mathematical descriptions of probability of arriving at point X (liquid flows downhill, balls roll downhill). In most sciences the lowest point is an analogy for the most likely statistical outcome. Neo-darwinist authors like Dawkins invert the landscape and render the ANALOGY invalid, because water does not flow downhill. A "trough" is not a "bad" or "devolved" state, like an economic slump, it is simply an analogy for a likely outcome. Your answer shows that you understood this instinctively as a dip in a species fortunes, clearly illustrating the hidden value judgements you deny, and a lack of care in reading the argument.

I deny no hidden value judgments. The purpose of the argument itself is to show that there ought to be more value judgments. You believe in value judgments, though you may deny it. Everyone believes in some absolute. (Yes, everyone. ) There is no such thing as true moral subjectivism. Value judgments are a part of life and must be addressed. If it is wrong for me to poke you in the eye, then you have placed a value on your eye. If it is wrong to hate gay people, then gay people have value. If it is wrong to hate black people, then black people have value. Again, the evolutionary system places no value on anything, human beings place value. I argue that human beings as a species place more value on life than on death. Therefore life is superior to death. Not from a detached scientific analysis of landscape analogies, but from the standpoint of a living species. Fish care nothing for chaos theory and statistical probablities, they care only about staying alive. All species including humans struggle for survival, therefore all species including humans value life.

3. Excessive use of absolutes. I have yet to read a single perr-reviewed scientific study or philosphical essay that uses absolutes without defining the domain of the absolute in vastly more explicit terms, and certainly none that assume the domain in which it is true to be the entire natural world. This is a hallmark of enthuasism triumphing over mental rigor. Another example below. Note no examples, studies vindications cited, just "Its always true cos I say so:

All you have to do is say that you personally don't believe that locusts or deer or any other plague or pestilence species multiply without predators and eventually destroy their habitat. If you do believe that this happens, but don't believe that it is caused by instinct, what do you think contributes to this destructive behavior if not the strong desire to reproduce? Where do all these locusts or deer or humans come from? This should be an accepted axiom to any familiar with even elementary biology. To agree with it and ask me to prove it anyway is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

I don't disagree with your argument Farren and it doesn't contradict mine. I don't need to address a refuting argument that doesn't directly address mine. Let me break my argument down so you can clearly address it.


A species with no predators and strong reproductive instincts that enable individuals to produce many offspring in a single lifetime will eventually destroy their habitat.
Humans are a species with no predators and strong reproductive instincts.
Therefore humans will eventually destroy their habitat.

Overpopulated humans will destroy their habitat and thus themselves.
Population control prevents habitat destruction.
Therefore human population should be controlled.

Human population can be controlled through the repression of the reproductive instinct, (contraception would be unconscious repression) or introduction of a predator.
Anything that kills innocent people is bad and should be avoided. (anyone besides Farren disagree?)
Therefore introduction of a predator is a bad way to control the human population, and repression of reproduction is the logical alternative.

Reproduction can be controlled through physical or cultural force.
You can't physically force people not to have sex or to use contraception.
Therefore, the instinct of reproduction should be culturally controlled, i.e. frowned upon by members of society.

Collectively encouraging contraception has failed to make any difference in the exponential growth rate of the population.
Collectively discouraging sex for pleasure might make a difference.
Therefore, we ought to collectively discourage non reproductive sex and irrational reproductive sex.*

*irrational reproductive sex being sex with the purpose of reproduction in an environment unsuitable for reproduction, i.e. the thirteen kids who starve to death because their parents can't find even enough food for themselves.


an analogous argument:

Racism is a belief that is detrimental to society.
We live in a country where beliefs can't be forcibly controlled.
Therefore racism ought to be culturally controlled, i.e. frowned upon by members of the society.

Your hang-up seems to be with my a priori assumption that habitat destruction and human species extinction is a bad thing. My argument is, "Let's prevent this." You may disagree with my method of prevention, but you seem to focus your argument on "so be it," or "why is this a bad thing?" On the contrary, I think most posters here will agree with me that overpopulation which leads to habitat destruction ought, if possible, be prevented. I'm not asking you to cry because the dinosaurs are extinct, I'm asking you to cry because humans may soon be despite the fact that we have the power to prevent it. From a completely mathematical and scientific point of view there is no difference. Que sera, sera. From a human point of view there is definitely a difference. Humans, by definition, do not want to become extinct. With your argument, no humans of any race or sexual orientation have any value at all along with all of the other life forms on the Earth. Fine from a detached statistical analysis. Mine assumes all human beings have equal value and that that value is greater to humans than the value of other life forms. The paradox is, since we rely on other life forms to keep humans alive, these life forms essentially carry the human value as far as survival and extinction go, since without them humans die. Therefore, to save humans we should save the environment by not eating it to death. Obviously I'm not arguing from a mathematical perspective, I'm arguing from the perspective of a life form.

4. An apparent belief in instantaneous cause and effect: "We've had this medicine for 50 of mankinds 2 million odd years on earth, and it hasn't significantly altered the consistent trajectory we've followed over that entire period, so its obviously not going to work". Are you familiar with the statistical concept of having an adequate sample?

Nonsense! It is a scientifically observed phenomenon. Prove that the rate of human population expansion has faltered even in the slightest in all the years that contraception has been available. Humans are expanding exponentially. Even in areas with free contraception available. Unless contraception and abortion are physically forced, the population expansion rate will continue to rise. Humans are animals. There is no reason to believe that they are immune to this fate solely because they are humans. There is reason to surmise that the ability to reason might be a third option as opposed to introduction of a predator or forced contraception. A part of my argument is that the reason tells us that ignoring instinct is superior to creating a way to indulge instinct without immediate consequences.

6. Argument by negation. In fact no argument at all. Person A presents argument (Spider in state of terror due to biological imperative). Person B says "You're wrong". Does not cite example. Does not say "This is an alternative interpretation". Just "You're wrong". Very convincing.

But I didn't say you were wrong! You were right. I quote:

Farren
Natural selection doesn't automatically produce species that are happy with the way they are designed.

True.

LWF
Natural selection automatically produces species that always pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

Also true. I was showing that, though correct, your argument did not refute mine. It was essentially a straw man. I never said that all species are naturally happy. I said all species naturally pursue pleasure and avoid pain. The male black widow is attempting to pursue pleasure and avoid pain when it races in to fertilize the female’s eggs while attempting to keep away from her fangs. The female black widow is doing exactly the same.

I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong", just "You could be right. If you addressed what I was saying you could even convince me. But you don't"

Respect
Farren

I don't address most of your argument because it is true. If you are convinced that it refutes mine, you are mistaken in your reasoning, citing above examples. I suspect that there is one clear thing that you sense I'm avoiding. If so, please elaborate and I will address it. Appealing to statistical systems is not logical because no animal is motivated by statistics alone. The reason we should and ought to do things is because there are goals and there are paths to goals that are superior to others. 2+2=4 is a superior equation than 2+2=3 because humans rightly assign it this value.

My fault entirely. I should have elaborated. If racism is engaging in the instinct of fear to excess (in other words, irrational,) then sex for pleasure and not reproduction is engaging in the instinct of lust to excess. Contraception is always sex without the purpose of reproduction, therefore it is always irrational. Even if the only person it harms is the person who's doing it, (and the harm comes from failing to think rationally) it should be frowned upon by society. This last sentence applies equally well to homophobia, racism, and contraception. Since I'm not naïve, I realize that frowning on contraception is impractical and will result in more harm than good, so I simply argue that, in addtion to making contraception availible, sex solely for pleasure should be frowned upon by society. In other words, "Don't have sex unless you are planning on raising a family, because sex for any reason other than reasonable and healthy reproduction is harmful to society, but if you choose to do so, then at least reduce the ammount of harm that you do to society by using contraception."

If I am a homophobic, but I never break any laws or intentionally hurt any gay people's feelings, what is wrong with my homophobia? Even if I intensely hate them all, but they never know it and my hatred does not influence any other human beings, where is the harm? The answer to this is the answer to your question. It harms the person who irrationally indulges their instinct of fear. Consensual sex for pleasure without reproduction harms the participants by encouraging trust in instinct over trust in reason.

Irrational? Well, if you're only thinking about reproduction, then maybe. But sex is also a way of creating an intimate bond with someone. It's not the only way of doing that, but it's a good way of doing it.

And anyway I was talking about irrationality in regards to fear, not sex. Rationality and harming others is important when you're thinking about fear, but not about sex. Consent is what is important in sex.

I would argue that sex is not a good way of creating an intimate bond with someone. It is a pleasurable way to be sure, but not all pleasurable things are good. If I take pleasure from sex with a thirteen-year-old girl, even if it is "consensual," this is not a good way to emotionally bond with her. If I take pleasure in tormenting animals, this is not good. The harm of consensual adult sex without the purpose of reproduction is that is normalizes this behavior to those who don't use contraception and this leads to human beings who can't be supported by their environment and whose short, painful lives inflict pain on those around them. As Farren points out, (I think,) that is the way life works, but I say that if pain can be prevented by sacrificing pleasure, it ought to be. Since all humans pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and since humans are social creatures, they will feed these unwanted humans and attempt to stretch the limits of their resources to save these unsupportable humans (and themselves) from as much pain as they possibly can. I argue that allowing the unsupportable humans to starve to save the supportable ones (don't ask me how it would be decided who is supportable and who is not) is less practical than simply avoiding the possibility of producing unsupportable humans. Without forced contraception and abortion, the only way I can think of to ensure this is to get away from our sexuality. To sacrifice one temporary pleasure to save human lives.

I repeat, consensual sex for pleasure may not cause you pain, but it reinforces a belief that eventually causes much pain to many others. And down the road, will even result in mass destruction of the habitat humans rely on, and the mass death that must accompany it.

LWF
Doesn't it harm me intellectually to hold any irrational belief, whether it affects anyone else or not? If so, shouldn't irrational sex, that is, sex without the purpose of propagating the species, be equally harmful and wrong?

SoD
No.

So you disagree with both statements, I presume? Do you believe that it is not harmful to hold an irrational belief? If so, why do you argue against Christians? Are you for the teaching of creationism in the classroom? If not, why not? If it is only harmful if it directly affects someone else, do you feel that private racism or homophobia is wrong? If I never harm any homosexuals in any way, but I hate them intensely, is this irrational belief wrong or harmful to me in any way? If you only disagree with my second statement, then you must not feel that sex for pleasure is irrational. But if sex for pleasure results in increased reproduction, (and that is the evolutionary purpose for the intense pleasure that accompanies the act, unless of course you believe it is a gift from God,) and if increased reproduction results in dangerous overpopulation, then sex for pleasure is irrational to a species that wishes to avoid death and destruction. I don't know that, if all humans only had sex when they wanted to have a child, we would never overpopulate, but I do know that if we only reproduced enough to maintain a steady environment and food supply, humans by default would never overpopulate. To put it simply, the desire to have a child must also be filtered through reason the same as the desire to have sex solely for pleasure. If reason alone were the human motivation, humans would never be any harm to themselves or to the environment. Since that is a tall order, we'd better get started using it.

Because wanting consensual sex doesn't harm anyone! Not even yourself. Fear can.

Wanting consensual sex can harm babies born in poverty very much. Even if you use contraception and live in luxury, you are reinforcing the belief that sex is something that ought to be enjoyed by everyone whether they are prepared to raise a child or not. This is an extremely harmful belief in a society with such limited resources. Wanting consensual sex is the cause of starvation in third-world countries. The environment is not inadequate to support humans. It is inadequate to support a species with no natural predators who strongly desires consensual sex. Because of this, humans die of starvation. I see this as a terrible thing to be avoided if at all possible. Encouraging sexual behavior for pleasure merely fans the flames of poverty and death with the only result being ridiculously temporary individual satisfaction.

OK, leaving biology out of it for a sec and concentrating on morals; No, the idea is

"If it feels good, do it, unless it hurts someone else".

Even if you think sleeping around hurts yourself, that doesn't count, because that's hurting youself not someone else. Having consensual sex with someone feels good and it does not HARM anyone else. So what is morally wrong about that?

If you fear a group of people for no reason, and develop bigotry against them, and discriminate against them or attack them, this harms others, and therefore is morally wrong. Maybe irrationality was a bad argument to use. Arachnophobia, an irrational fear, only harms yourself, so there's nothing morally wrong with arachnophobia. Homophobia can harm other people, so it IS morally wrong.

So if something hurts you down the road, but feels good at the moment, should you do it? What if it hurts others down the road, but nobody right now?

"Homophobia can harm other people, so it IS morally wrong."

Is the ability to harm someone what makes the belief wrong? If so, wanting sex for pleasure is just as wrong as homophobia because it can harm a minority just as much, if not worse than homophobia. Rape may have different motivation than a hate crime on the surface, but both are harmful and both result solely from indulging in natural instincts without using reason. Homophobia does not by default harm anyone, unless you think that having an irrational fear harms the person who is irrationally fearful. It can harm others in the same way that lust can harm others. I think rationality is the only determining factor in whether something is moral or immoral. Any irrational decision is harmful in some respect, however trivial, and is therefore immoral, if immoral decisions are any decisions that cause some kind of unnecessary harm to a living thing.

Engaging in lust, even when no harm comes to anyone, is harmful because it rewards irrationality with pleasure. Any given person is liable to be a role model for another person, and if a role model's actions are irrational but pleasurable, the person who models him or herself after this person will feel encouraged to trust pleasurable instincts over rationality, which encourages irrational beliefs that may or may not immediately be harmful to someone else, but will eventually snowball into something that is definitely harmful. In other words, referencing Farren's chaos theory, a little, seemingly harmless indulgence in insinct can eventually lead to massive, harmful negligence in reason in another human being. Wrapping it all up: In a society of human beings, irrational motivation is always eventually harmful to someone and is therefore immoral.

Salmon of Doubt

OK, so it harms the person who is fearing, yes, so it's bad. But that kind of thing always spews outwards. I know someone who made my life very unpleasant last year, and I still sometimes have to interact with her. I have never been actively unpleasent, but she is very much aware that I can't stand her. Hatred is always detectable by the person being hated unless you sever all contact.

What?! I enjoy eating chocolate every so often, in moderation. Is that as immoral as enjoying sex every so often in moderation? Does eating chocolate encourage trust in instinct, because my body tells me it tastes good? If sex is morally wrong am I allowed to masturbate? Or is that morally wrong as well because that feels good?


Why not? you get to give your partner a wonderful sensation, and they get to do the same to you. What other ways would you like to forge an intimate relationship apart from making your partner happy with sex?

Did I say they were? No.

So I'm not allowed to have sex with contraception because it sets a bad example to people who will have sex without contraception? Oh, great. Does that mean it's immoral to go and spend money on my shopping because it encourages other people to do the same and they might get into debt?

You are using the increasing population as a negative consequence of sex. That may be, but it is a negative consequence of unprotected sex, not sex with contraception. The largest population increases occur in areas without contraception. And in those areas what should be happening is the handing out of contraception, not the preaching of abstinence.

No, sorry, I was not specific enough. I disagree with the second statement. It does harm someone to hold an irrational belief, like for example, that protected sex increases the human population. Irrational sex is a personal definition though. I don't think sex is irrational at all, and you have offered no argument that it plays no part in forging intimacy.

You haven't proven conclusively to me that protected sex with a consenting adult has anywhere near the same negative effect on the person practicing it, or other people.

So give them some condoms!

HAAHAHAHAHAHAH! Are you serious!? The causes of starvation in third world countries are the lack of resources, the poor climate, corrupt governments, lack of aid from first world countries, etc. Overpopulation is a consequence of those, as people have more children to bring in money for their families. Were they given an impreovement in their living conditions and access to contraception, the population would halt its explosion, and even start decreasing, as it has in some developed nations.


You probably desire not to do something that hurts yourself, but it is not morally wrong to do that. Drugs may have some negative effects on brain chemistry down the road, but it is an individual's choice if they want to take them for the benefits now. If it will hurt others some time later, it is still immoral, like planting landmines.


I agree with this. I'm not sure about the use of the word 'reason' though. Rape is the immoral extension of sexual desire to someone who has not consented. It shows a lack of respect, but not necessarily reason.

Then we disagree. Besides, your definition of rational is not necesarily the same as mine. I don't see sex as irrational, because it gives people pleasure without any negative side effects, and it lets them forge a very intimate bond and romantic relationship with their partner. I still don't see anything wrong or immoral in that, because there is no harm. I think it is perfectly rational to want to give someone you love pleasure, and recieve it from them in return. Do you disagree?

long winded fool

Hatred is very often detectable, and it is harmful. The fact that harm from sex for pleasure is not obvious and not easily detectable, doesn't mean that it is not harmful.

What?! I enjoy eating chocolate every so often, in moderation. Is that as immoral as enjoying sex every so often in moderation? Does eating chocolate encourage trust in instinct, because my body tells me it tastes good? If sex is morally wrong am I allowed to masturbate? Or is that morally wrong as well because that feels good?

It's not morally wrong because it feels good. That was never the point of my argument. Some things that feel good are morally wrong. Why? Because they are irrational and irrational things are harmful. Do you agree that eating chocolate in moderation is harmful if you influence someone else to eat too much chocolate and get fat? It may not be your fault, but it is harmful. I would presume that if you had a friend who was trying to quit smoking, you wouldn't smoke around her because you might tempt her into lighting up. All of these things are harmful when they influence someone else to harm themselves or other people, though they may not be harmful in themselves. Promoting sex for enjoyment harms other people. I'm not passing judgment on those who do irrational things because I live in a glass house, so to speak. I am simply labeling irrational behaviors irrational and harmful behaviors harmful. If we ought to avoid all behaviors that result in harm to human beings, we ought to avoid promoting sex as an activity to be enjoyed with any who will consent.

Why not? you get to give your partner a wonderful sensation, and they get to do the same to you. What other ways would you like to forge an intimate relationship apart from making your partner happy with sex?

Perhaps in the same way you form an intimate and loving relationship with your son or daughter or mother or father? I give them wonderful sensations that have nothing to do with the instinct to reproduce.

So I'm not allowed to have sex with contraception because it sets a bad example to people who will have sex without contraception? Oh, great. Does that mean it's immoral to go and spend money on my shopping because it encourages other people to do the same and they might get into debt?

You are allowed to do any legal thing you want. If you have a shopaholic friend who is in massive debt, you ought not to go on a shopping spree if there is a chance that it will influence him or her to do the same, but you are allowed to. If you have a friend addicted to gambling, you ought not to gamble if you support him and want to help him quit, but you're allowed to if you so desire. Dangling pleasurable things in front of people who suffer harm from them is immoral. I don't think it ought to be outlawed since I enjoy personal freedom, however in the interest of societal cooperation, I think all personal beliefs that are harmful to society ought to be frowned upon by society as a whole.

You are using the increasing population as a negative consequence of sex. That may be, but it is a negative consequence of unprotected sex, not sex with contraception. The largest population increases occur in areas without contraception. And in those areas what should be happening is the handing out of contraception, not the preaching of abstinence.

Voluntary contraception is not enough. America is growing faster than nations with no widely available methods of contraception. Why? Because we celebrate our sexuality while less advanced and more repressed societies still tend to reserve it for marriage, at least from a cultural standpoint. If voluntary contraception encourages sexuality outside of marriage and therefore a healthy family unit, then it does not prevent overpopulation. Unless you are talking about government-enforced contraception, I don't think you can argue that contraception is either a more practical nor effective method of population control than abstinence.

No, sorry, I was not specific enough. I disagree with the second statement. It does harm someone to hold an irrational belief, like for example, that protected sex increases the human population. Irrational sex is a personal definition though. I don't think sex is irrational at all, and you have offered no argument that it plays no part in forging intimacy.

I love my mother far more than any woman I've ever had sex with. (I can safely say that because I'm still single. ) Therefore, sex is not crucial in a loving relationship with a member of the opposite (or same) sex. It is crucial solely for a reproductive relationship.

You haven't proven conclusively to me that protected sex with a consenting adult has anywhere near the same negative effect on the person practicing it, or other people.

It doesn't have the same negative effect of racism or homophobia. The point is that it has a negative effect. Trust me, I'm against homophobia and racism far more adamantly than I am against casual sex. But I AM against casual sex being considered a rational and therefore acceptable behavior when it clearly is not rational. Just because racism and homophobia are terrible and more relevant issues to deal with, doesn't mean that the problem of casual sex is not still a problem.

So give them some condoms!

Won't work. The effect of curbing population growth with voluntary contraception is so minute as to not even be worth mentioning. All societies which practice voluntary contraception are growing faster than their resources can support them.

HAAHAHAHAHAHAH! Are you serious!? The causes of starvation in third world countries are the lack of resources, the poor climate, corrupt governments, lack of aid from first world countries, etc. Overpopulation is a consequence of those, as people have more children to bring in money for their families. Were they given an impreovement in their living conditions and access to contraception, the population would halt its explosion, and even start decreasing, as it has in some developed nations.

I'm afraid I must completely disagree here. All of those atrocities result solely from overpopulation, not vice versa. When humans must fight over resources, they are overpopulated. They cannot be given an improvement in living conditions, because all the good living conditions are taken. Since overpopulation is what causes lack of resources, corrupt governments, living in a poor climate, and lack of foreign aid, we must ask what causes overpopulation? Overpopulation is caused by the strong instinct to reproduce without an adequate predator to kill us off at roughly the same rate. This is the one and only cause. Giving third world countries foreign aid is like taking aspirin to dull the pain of cancer. I'm certainly not against relieving pain, but temporary relief is useless if you don't solve the problem. If voluntary contraception could solve the problem, I'd be all for using it alone. Since it can't, not only ought we to provide contraceptives, we also ought to frown on the indulging of our species' strong instinct to reproduce in the same way we frown on indulging in our species' strong instinct to fear what we don't understand.

You probably desire not to do something that hurts yourself, but it is not morally wrong to do that. Drugs may have some negative effects on brain chemistry down the road, but it is an individual's choice if they want to take them for the benefits now. If it will hurt others some time later, it is still immoral, like planting landmines.

Are you saying it is not morally wrong to do something that is harmful to yourself? That IS what you’re saying, though it may not be what you mean. Allowing yourself to have the desire to be harmful to another, whether you actually harm someone or manage not to, is immoral. Would you agree that hatred is always harmful, even in the man who is stranded on a desert island for his entire life with no one to influence? Is his hatred irrational and harmful? Maybe not as harmful as if a functioning member of a society had an irrational hatred, but it is still harmful and therefore ought to be avoided, right?

I agree with this. I'm not sure about the use of the word 'reason' though. Rape is the immoral extension of sexual desire to someone who has not consented. It shows a lack of respect, but not necessarily reason.

I think it shows a lack of reason as well. I think anyone who voluntarily harms another individual while expecting not to be harmed is failing to use reason. If I rape a woman while at the same time not wanting to be in her shoes being raped by a man, then I am not acting rationally. I am acting selfishly and instinctively.

Then we disagree. Besides, your definition of rational is not necesarily the same as mine. I don't see sex as irrational, because it gives people pleasure without any negative side effects, and it lets them forge a very intimate bond and romantic relationship with their partner. I still don't see anything wrong or immoral in that, because there is no harm. I think it is perfectly rational to want to give someone you love pleasure, and recieve it from them in return. Do you disagree?

I fully agree with the last part. It is very rational to give someone you love as much pleasure as you can without doing harm. Unfortunately, we often fail to use our ability to reason and harm the ones we love by attempting to give pleasure when it is harmful. My mother used to be over-protective because she loved me so much. As a result, I tended to be very afraid of irrational things when I was little. She harmed me by instinctively trying to keep me from pain she imagined to be around every corner. I see no difference with the instinct of lust. You agree that attempting to give a woman pleasure without her consent is harmful. Where we disagree is that I see a negative side to consensual sex for pleasure and not for reproduction. Ironically, encouraging sex for pleasure leads to more reproduction than allowing oneself sex only for reproduction. Without contraception, there can be no accidents. (Not in a fully reasoning being anyway.) With a discouragement of sex outside of reproductive motivation by the majority, I think there is a good chance that the human species could attain balance with its environment. There is also a chance of this with introducing war and genocide as an artificial human predator, or with physically forcing contraception on people, however I feel my solution should be tried before we resort to these. (And if my solution is not tried, we will resort to one or both of these. We might have to even if it is.) I do not think that there is a chance of population control with voluntary contraception, based on the exponentially exploding growth rate of populations with access to contraception.

Salmon of Doubt

And if I knew a sex addict, I wouldn’t talk about sex in front of them. But why shouldn’t I have sex in my own home when they aren’t there?

Ok. I promote sex for enjoyment with contraception with a consenting partner that preferably you love. How does that harm people?

It is different, because you already have a deep bond with family members. But if you meet a new person who you love, it is perfectly natural to feel sexual attraction to that person, and perfectly natural to want to have sex with them, and I still don’t see anything wrong with that.

Ok, so I’ve already said that if I knew a sex addict I wouldn’t have sex or talk about sex in front of them. But telling ordinary people that sex is alright is not harmful, just like telling an ordinary person it’s ok to eat chocolate is not harmful. A minority of people go and have 8 kids or whatever, and a some people get fat from eating chocolate, but that does not mean that everyone else should be restricted in their own sexual or dietary habits just because some people let it get out of hand.

Allow me to quote. This I just the first site I found off google.
http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigatio...ion_Growth.htm
“Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries.

The more developed countries in Europe and North America, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are growing by less than 1 percent annually.”

Apparently the US birth rate is growing faster than other developed nations, but I have to inform you that European countries celebrate sexuality just as much if not more than America. And our birth rate is still low. One explanation for this is the higher amount of sex education in Europe compared to America, teaching youths to use contraception.

I can, and I do.

http://www.avert.org/sexedu.htm
“It has been shown that in countries like The Netherlands, where many families regard it as an important responsibility to talk openly with children about sex and sexuality, this contributes to greater cultural openness about sex and sexuality and improved sexual health among young people.”

Improved sexual health here means more use of contraception. This ties in with less teenage pregnancy, and fewer STDs. Don’t you think this is a good thing? They learn about contraception, and how to be open about sex. It has also been shown that kids educated properly about sex choose voluntarily to wait and have sex in a stable monogamous relationships, whereas kids that don’t know anything experiment for themselves earlier, with random short relationships.

I didn’t say it was crucial. I said it was a very good way of bonding (with non family members, obviously).

We do agree on this, then. I don’t promote casual sex at all. I personally don’t like the idea, and wouldn’t do it. I promote being able to talk about sex in a guilt free manner, and being able to have sex with your partner without being condemned for being irrational and immoral. If people want casual sex too I’m happy with that, as long as both parties are aware they should not get emotionally attached. Apart from that issue of emotions, there is no other reason why casual sex with contraception is bad.

Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%).

Do these places practice voluntary contraception?


I agree it is a vicious cycle, and the solving of this vicious cycle is to work towards both improving living conditions, and reducing population growth. The cycle must be tackled in both places at once. And you have got to be having a laugh if you think preaching abstinence is going to work in preventing pregnancies. People are always going to have sex, because it’s nice! The way to do it is to let them have sex, give them contraception, and improve the conditions so they don’t need more children to bring in food.

Not at all. The instinct to have sex is not inherently bad. If you are using contraception, and in a stable relationship, what’s wrong with sex?! It is healthy, and harms no-one. I’m sorry, but if you believe that sex is an unhealthy and irrelevant act when not coupled with reproduction then you must have a rather unfulfilled life. You’d be missing out on a lot!

Instincts like irrational fear and sexuality were very much useful for our ancestors. Fear of the unknown is the weaker of these impulses, as it is easily overcome by education. Sex, however, is an invariant desire for pleasure, and I don’t see any reason to deny people this simple natural pleasure.


Yes, that is what I’m saying. If it is my decision to harm my own body, and I am in my right mind about my decision, then I don’t think anyone else should stop me. I went and got my ears pierced, and I went and got a tattoo. I also nearly killed myself once, but I was not in my right mind at the time, and I’m glad I didn’t. But it was not morally wrong for me to contemplate that, as it was my own body I was dealing with.

He’s only harming himself, so I don’t see that as a moral issue. It is better to avoid that, but he’s only harming himself, and it’s his body. I would advise him against it, but I wouldn’t proclaim him immoral for doing it.


Well, if they had an elaborate plan to avoid harm and subsequent prosecution, that could be completely reasonable, and yet still immoral.


Why? Why does my having sex with someone harm them?

How? Is this harm
1) Emotional?
2) Physical?
3) Population related?
4) Spiritually related?

Humans have evolved to think about sex a hell of a lot of the time. People who repress this instinct and try never to have sex, convincing themselves that it is wrong and evil very regularly end up with emotional problems and generally not having a very fun life. I see that harming people far more than having sex with a consenting partner.

I’m afraid you have your facts wrong there. The only parts of the world currently undergoing exponential growth are the third world countries without contraception.

long winded fool

If I knew a member of the KKK who was prone to violence I wouldn't talk about racism in front of him, but what is wrong with being racist when he isn't there?

Ok. I promote sex for enjoyment with contraception with a consenting partner that preferably you love. How does that harm people?

How does promoting non-violent, pacifistic racism harm other people?

It is different, because you already have a deep bond with family members. But if you meet a new person who you love, it is perfectly natural to feel sexual attraction to that person, and perfectly natural to want to have sex with them, and I still don’t see anything wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with experiencing the feelings. There is something wrong with not being rational and encouraging others to do the same.

Ok, so I’ve already said that if I knew a sex addict I wouldn’t have sex or talk about sex in front of them. But telling ordinary people that sex is alright is not harmful, just like telling an ordinary person it’s ok to eat chocolate is not harmful. A minority of people go and have 8 kids or whatever, and a some people get fat from eating chocolate, but that does not mean that everyone else should be restricted in their own sexual or dietary habits just because some people let it get out of hand.

It only takes two people to produce 8 kids in an environment not suited for 10 people. It only takes those 8 kids to have 16 kids in an environment now suited for less than 5 people... and on... and on. The harm comes from the dire consequences. Obesity is a bad consequence of eating chocolate and the irrational consumption of chocolate ought to be frowned upon, but it is not as bad as the consequence of sex for pleasure which is overpopulation.

Allow me to quote. This I just the first site I found off google.
http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigatio...ion_Growth.htm
“Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries.

Touché. Contraception certainly is a method of population control and does have an impact, though small so far, on the growth rate of the population. Maybe more encouragement of voluntary contraception will achieve a balance in human population with our environment within our children's lifetimes, but this is very, very doubtful. And if this doesn't happen, assuming we don't colonize another planet to buy us a huge ammount of time, a whole lot of our grandchildren are going to die very quickly. Perhaps it is safe enough for the collective species to survive overpopulation if they engage in the reproductive act for reasons other than reproduction, if reproduction can be effectively prevented during the act. Though it is seriously doubtful that this will happen, it is possible that it will happen, therefore encouraging sex and contraception will not absolutely result in human genocide. It's just very likely. Therefore, though the superiority of abstinence may not be absolute, it is still a more rational path to take than promoting sex with contraception.

http://www.avert.org/sexedu.htm
“It has been shown that in countries like The Netherlands, where many families regard it as an important responsibility to talk openly with children about sex and sexuality, this contributes to greater cultural openness about sex and sexuality and improved sexual health among young people.”

Improved sexual health here means more use of contraception. This ties in with less teenage pregnancy, and fewer STDs. Don’t you think this is a good thing? They learn about contraception, and how to be open about sex. It has also been shown that kids educated properly about sex choose voluntarily to wait and have sex in a stable monogamous relationships, whereas kids that don’t know anything experiment for themselves earlier, with random short relationships.

I am for sexual education. I don't think that sexual feelings are bad in any way. I think that they are feelings that ought to be filtered through reason just like any instinct. Overeating should be frowned upon. (When I say "frowned upon" I just mean that it should be considered a vice instead of a virtue.) Irrational fear should be frowned upon as a vice/problem or just something that most people think should be avoided. Being afraid a whole lot and never applying reason to your fears is your right as a human being, but ought to never be viewed as a virtue. On the other hand, fearful people should not be judged or avoided any more than obese people. People who have sex for pleasure should not be judged as anything other than human beings with a condition similar to phobia or with an overeating problem. Eating for a reason other than healthy survival is overeating. Fearing things that will not threaten your survival is irrational fear. Having sex for a reason other than propagation of the species is irrational sex. No one ever died from abstinence. Is it "bad" to engage in irrational behavior? I don't know. All I know is that it is irrational and it has permanent consequences that are undesirable to those who engage in them, whether they think about them at the time or not.

I didn’t say it was crucial. I said it was a very good way of bonding (with non family members, obviously).

If it's not crucial and does result in harm, then it should be avoided, correct? You're right, engaging in private sex for pleasure probably won't harm anyone down the road, but to promote it as a desirable thing will encourage others to engage in sex for pleasure. To say, "By the way, use birth control!" may prevent unwanted babies in some cases, but it is naïve to think that it will in all cases. Therefore harm comes not only to the parents, but the child and anyone else who is relying on food that must be fed to the baby for survival. I would argue that it is naïve to think that contraception will prevent unsupportable humans in enough instances to preclude overpopulation from eventually destroying the species. Yes, if voluntary birth control had been widely practiced and promoted since early humans walked the Earth, we might have a considerably longer lifespan than the conceivable one we are stuck with at the present, but if total abstinence except with the purpose of having a supportable child were practiced and promoted even starting this year, the human race could eventually fall back into a normal and healthy balance with its environment and not limit its own lifespan. When the food supply starts to drop, people would stop producing babies, and when it went back up again, they'd start. Of course it is an unreasonable request that everyone abstain all the time. It is a far more reasonable request to tone down the promotion of sex for pleasure. Sex is fundamentally for reproduction, despite its many other rationally questionable uses. I am all for contraception and sex education. I am against calling sex for pleasure rational or safe, condom or no. I'm not worried about STD's and the individuals having sex for pleasure, and I'm not worried about unwanted children being put in crowded orphanages. I'm worried about my great-grandchildren having enough food to eat.

We do agree on this, then. I don’t promote casual sex at all. I personally don’t like the idea, and wouldn’t do it. I promote being able to talk about sex in a guilt free manner, and being able to have sex with your partner without being condemned for being irrational and immoral. If people want casual sex too I’m happy with that, as long as both parties are aware they should not get emotionally attached. Apart from that issue of emotions, there is no other reason why casual sex with contraception is bad.

Do you have a problem with completely private and pacifistic racism or homophobia, or people who promote this? Why? No one is being harmed by pacifistic racism! If I hate gays, what concern is that of yours as long as, apart from the issue of emotions, I never harm a hair on anyone's head?

Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%).

Do these places practice voluntary contraception?

Perhaps. Or perhaps there are just not enough resources to go around? Population decline in a nation that practices voluntary contraception is not automatically an indication that voluntary contraception is the culprit. After the crops are all eaten, the population of the locusts declines sharply. Not necessarily because there is some unknown predator or because of some unknown disease. When an environment can't support a population, the population either moves to another environment or shrinks until the environment can support it. If the environment can support only a thousand of a species of 3 million, 2,999,000 individuals must die or otherwise be removed from the environment. Species which multiply at high speeds can literally destroy an entire habitat in a single generation, killing millions of individuals all at once. Though it's the circle of life, I'd rather not be reliant on the environment when this occurs, and I'd rather none of my grandchildren were either.

I agree it is a vicious cycle, and the solving of this vicious cycle is to work towards both improving living conditions, and reducing population growth. The cycle must be tackled in both places at once. And you have got to be having a laugh if you think preaching abstinence is going to work in preventing pregnancies. People are always going to have sex, because it’s nice! The way to do it is to let them have sex, give them contraception, and improve the conditions so they don’t need more children to bring in food.

Preaching any minority belief to the majority usually has little effect. Beliefs based on logic and reason tend to eventually, (though perhaps not always) become majority beliefs and thus turn around to have the greater effect than beliefs based on instinct and tradition. Anti-slavery campaigns were once laughable because everyone instinctively knew that using Africans to do the dirty work was nice. It turned out in the end that slavery was not rational, nice though it was to have someone else do our work for us. If rational abstinence can be proven to be either a rationally equal or inferior method of curtailing overpopulation than contraception alone, then I will no longer preach abstinence. I will never, however, judge anyone who does not practice abstinence as anything other than mistaken.

Not at all. The instinct to have sex is not inherently bad. If you are using contraception, and in a stable relationship, what’s wrong with sex?! It is healthy, and harms no-one. I’m sorry, but if you believe that sex is an unhealthy and irrelevant act when not coupled with reproduction then you must have a rather unfulfilled life. You’d be missing out on a lot!

Instincts like irrational fear and sexuality were very much useful for our ancestors. Fear of the unknown is the weaker of these impulses, as it is easily overcome by education. Sex, however, is an invariant desire for pleasure, and I don’t see any reason to deny people this simple natural pleasure.

The instinct to fear is not inherently bad either. If your fear harms no one, what's wrong with racism!? If you believe racism is an unhealthy and rationally irrelevant belief, you too are missing out on a lot. Namely the chance to blame others for your problems, thus allowing you to avoid unpleasant critical analysis. What's wrong with avoiding the unpleasant? Do you see any reason to deny people this simple natural desire? Of course we ought not deny people the pleasure of sex. We ought to view engaging in sex solely for pleasure as a vice and not a virtue.

Yes, that is what I’m saying. If it is my decision to harm my own body, and I am in my right mind about my decision, then I don’t think anyone else should stop me. I went and got my ears pierced, and I went and got a tattoo. I also nearly killed myself once, but I was not in my right mind at the time, and I’m glad I didn’t. But it was not morally wrong for me to contemplate that, as it was my own body I was dealing with.

This implies that if you make a decision to harm your body and you are obviously not in your right mind (which means not thinking rationally, I assume,) then I ought to physically stop you if I am a moral person. Is this a fair assessment? Since contemplating suicide was not immoral even though you were not in your right mind at the time, it's not morally wrong (and therefore morally right, I presume) to harm yourself even if you are not in your right mind, yet someone ought to stop you from doing it. Are you saying that I should stop you from doing something that you consider morally right if I am a moral person? If so, I ought to physically stop you from having sex for pleasure because if you were completely rational (in your right mind,) you'd recognize this as an immoral behavior, though you irrationally believe it to be moral, since I consider myself a moral person. What makes my interpretation of morality the correct one, you ask? What makes yours? Logic is the only rational judge of morality. Morality doesn't exist without the ability to reason, therefore we ought to use reason to determine that which is moral and immoral.

He’s only harming himself, so I don’t see that as a moral issue. It is better to avoid that, but he’s only harming himself, and it’s his body. I would advise him against it, but I wouldn’t proclaim him immoral for doing it.

If it is better to avoid a certain belief than pursue it then it is a moral issue. If he's doing something wrong, then he ought to be advised against it. Why should he be advised against it? Because it is harmful (hence morally wrong.) If a behavior is ultimately harmful to any human being, it is immoral to engage in it.

Well, if they had an elaborate plan to avoid harm and subsequent prosecution, that could be completely reasonable, and yet still immoral.

How is it ever reasonable or rational to avoid prosecution? If everyone in a society did this, could a society do anything but collapse? I'd say that concocting an ingenious plan to avoid porsecution is immoral solely because it is irrational. Even geniuses at times are apparently slaves to their instincts.

Why? Why does my having sex with someone harm them?

It doesn't have to. How does my hatred of my gay neighbor harm him?

How? Is this harm
1) Emotional?
2) Physical?
3) Population related?
4) Spiritually related?

Harm that threatens the survival of the species must by definition fall into all these categories. I understand that you do not accept my conclusion that sex for pleasure is harmful to the survival of the population, yet this is so with every non-prey species which has a strong reproductive instinct. Humans are a non-prey species with a strong reproductive instinct. Voluntary contraception and fetal abortion fall into the category of an artificially created predator, i.e. a way for us to kill other humans (or prevent them from forming when they otherwise would have.) The creation of artificial predators to curb the population would not be needed without the strong instinct to reproduce. Is the pleasure of sex too strong to be able to ever avoid preying on ourselves in order to control the population? Can preying on humans even effectively control the population? Not so far. We'd have to kill a lot more than unborn humans and sperm and egg cells to survive into the next century at the current rate of expansion. Maybe a big war or a plague will thin out our ranks, but I'd rather everybody just used logic and reason to train themselves to avoid unnecessary sex as they do unnecessary fear.

Humans have evolved to think about sex a hell of a lot of the time. People who repress this instinct and try never to have sex, convincing themselves that it is wrong and evil very regularly end up with emotional problems and generally not having a very fun life. I see that harming people far more than having sex with a consenting partner.

Repressing sex and embracing fear is certainly harmful as religious fundamentalists have shown us again and again. Repressing fear and embracing sex is harmful as worldwide environmental destruction and starvation resulting from overpopulation testify. Artificial predators like contraception help, but are they the best method of control? Once we learned to conquer irrational fear, we easily conquered the world. By learning to conquer irrational lust, we can save the world. To say that lust is never irrational is as logical as saying that fear is never irrational. There may be nothing inherently wrong with it, but it can be, and more often than not is, irrational.

I’m afraid you have your facts wrong there. The only parts of the world currently undergoing exponential growth are the third world countries without contraception.

Any part of the world undergoing exponential growth increase affects the world population. Keep in mind that a decrease in growth rate is not necessarily a decrease in population. The growth rate of a nation could decrease considerably and the population could still increase. The reason that the growth rate of the population is soon expected to level off is because the planet simply can't support the number of humans that are inevitably on the way judging by past population curve. We will stop growing. We can put a stop to our growth, or nature can do it for us by putting a stop to our food. Voluntary contraception is a perfectly viable way of population control. I hope it is enough. Human predation (not just on fetuses, i.e. wars/plagues/starvation) is perfectly viable and is enough to control the population, but I hope it is not needed for very much longer, (a vain hope I suppose, given the current political situation.) Rational abstinence is a perfectly viable way of population control. I know that it is enough and that with it we need not rely on mass suffering to balance the species. We need only sacrifice our predisposition to indulge instinct at will. (Perhaps another vain hope, given the current cultural situation.)

VivaHedone

Health benfits of sex.

Loren Pechtel

Website not found.