![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
outsdrThis discussion began in a Doctor Who mailing list, of all places. The
thread involved how Time Lords reproduce, and I stated that
"Personally I believe that as a species evolves, it is a natural expectation that sexual intercourse as a means of inefficient reproduction will be done away with."
That garnered this response by "Joseph" (My postings will be in bold text, responses made by others will be italicized):
On the contrary the abandonment of sexual reproduction would be
detrimental in the following ways
1) It would reduce diversity in the gene pool, thus increasing the
chance of an environmental calamity or virus wiping the species out.
No one can guess which genetic characteristics may be valuable to the
species at a future time.
2) By eliminating the family unit it would reduce cultural diversity,
thus increasing our societies susceptibility to totalitarianism,
social utilitarianism.
3) Abandoning sexual reproduction would lead to the libido not been a
favoured species characteristic. Since the libido is an engine of
artistic creativity, innovation and social interaction this would
almost certainly result in a stagnation in cultural and even
scientific development.
I'm not sure whether you're also insinuating that the evolved society
would also do away with Sexual Intercourse - the culture in Huxley's
Brave New World still had sex, they just had a constant supply of
contraceptives; in fact as a result they had more sex, just less
emotional attachments. Of course doing away with sex as an act of
pleasure has a whole set of different problems, but fortunately
(though attempted by most world religions) is next to impossible -
the instinctual imperative always wins through.
Here is my response:
Joseph wrote:
Any species that is scientifically advanced enough to be able to do away with sexual intercourse as a means of reproduction would also most likely either have or be close to having the ability to also manipulate gentic structure so that the random nature of genetic characteristics could be eliminated, in favor of chosen reliable gentic traits and strengths.
This seems to be a pretty broad leap of assumption. Eliminating sexual intercourse as a means of reproduction does not necessarily elimnate a familial unit... either a family would still be made up of those people who still share the same genetics, or it will evolve into something else entirely. And exactly how does a reduction in cultural diversity lead to totalitarianism? For that matter, how does the elimination of a familial unit lead to a reduction in cultural diversity?
I admit, I had to look up utilitarianism. The second definition is "The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." The first is "The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility." How would this be a bad thing?
I'm not sure I accept this. _Passion_ is certainly an engine of creativity, but libido? Libido is just sex drive.... a desire to reproduce. Considering the world is, by some arguments, over populated already, it can be argued that the drive for reproduction is an obsolete biological imperative that a higher-evolved society will no longer need.
Pretty much, yes. It's a messy and inefficient method of reproduction, due to the random nature of the genetic results. While there is likelihood of a gentic abomination as well as a gentic superman, the results are usually just... well, average. At some point, a species will reach a level of advancement where the idea of advancing the species becomes more desireable than random progeny.
This is of course an argument based on the belief that sex is a pleasurable act.
Imagine a world where people were no longer hinder or held back by the distracting desire for mating? There would be greater productivity, products could be choosen for such traits as how well they actually did the job they were being sold for, not how "sexy" they may make you, etc, etc.
A species that developes a society that no longer needs to fear a de-evolution or breakdown to a former lesser instinctual animalistic behavior will have eliminated and overcome those base instincts and imperatives.
I only sent this in minutes ago, so there is not yet a reply. I'm interested to see where this discussion goes.
Edit: The moderator killed the thread. Damn.
"Personally I believe that as a species evolves, it is a natural expectation that sexual intercourse as a means of inefficient reproduction will be done away with."
That garnered this response by "Joseph" (My postings will be in bold text, responses made by others will be italicized):
On the contrary the abandonment of sexual reproduction would be
detrimental in the following ways
1) It would reduce diversity in the gene pool, thus increasing the
chance of an environmental calamity or virus wiping the species out.
No one can guess which genetic characteristics may be valuable to the
species at a future time.
2) By eliminating the family unit it would reduce cultural diversity,
thus increasing our societies susceptibility to totalitarianism,
social utilitarianism.
3) Abandoning sexual reproduction would lead to the libido not been a
favoured species characteristic. Since the libido is an engine of
artistic creativity, innovation and social interaction this would
almost certainly result in a stagnation in cultural and even
scientific development.
I'm not sure whether you're also insinuating that the evolved society
would also do away with Sexual Intercourse - the culture in Huxley's
Brave New World still had sex, they just had a constant supply of
contraceptives; in fact as a result they had more sex, just less
emotional attachments. Of course doing away with sex as an act of
pleasure has a whole set of different problems, but fortunately
(though attempted by most world religions) is next to impossible -
the instinctual imperative always wins through.
Here is my response:
Joseph wrote:
On the contrary the abandonment of sexual reproduction would be
detrimental in the following ways
1) It would reduce diversity in the gene pool, thus increasing the
chance of an environmental calamity or virus wiping the species out.
No one can guess which genetic characteristics may be valuable to the
species at a future time.
Any species that is scientifically advanced enough to be able to do away with sexual intercourse as a means of reproduction would also most likely either have or be close to having the ability to also manipulate gentic structure so that the random nature of genetic characteristics could be eliminated, in favor of chosen reliable gentic traits and strengths.
2) By eliminating the family unit it would reduce cultural diversity,
thus increasing our societies susceptibility to totalitarianism,
social utilitarianism.
This seems to be a pretty broad leap of assumption. Eliminating sexual intercourse as a means of reproduction does not necessarily elimnate a familial unit... either a family would still be made up of those people who still share the same genetics, or it will evolve into something else entirely. And exactly how does a reduction in cultural diversity lead to totalitarianism? For that matter, how does the elimination of a familial unit lead to a reduction in cultural diversity?
I admit, I had to look up utilitarianism. The second definition is "The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." The first is "The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility." How would this be a bad thing?
3) Abandoning sexual reproduction would lead to the libido not been a
favoured species characteristic. Since the libido is an engine of
artistic creativity, innovation and social interaction this would
almost certainly result in a stagnation in cultural and even
scientific development.
I'm not sure I accept this. _Passion_ is certainly an engine of creativity, but libido? Libido is just sex drive.... a desire to reproduce. Considering the world is, by some arguments, over populated already, it can be argued that the drive for reproduction is an obsolete biological imperative that a higher-evolved society will no longer need.
I'm not sure whether you're also insinuating that the evolved society
would also do away with Sexual Intercourse
Pretty much, yes. It's a messy and inefficient method of reproduction, due to the random nature of the genetic results. While there is likelihood of a gentic abomination as well as a gentic superman, the results are usually just... well, average. At some point, a species will reach a level of advancement where the idea of advancing the species becomes more desireable than random progeny.
- the culture in Huxley's
Brave New World still had sex, they just had a constant supply of
contraceptives; in fact as a result they had more sex, just less
emotional attachments. Of course doing away with sex as an act of
pleasure has a whole set of different problems, but fortunately
(though attempted by most world religions) is next to impossible -
the instinctual imperative always wins through.
This is of course an argument based on the belief that sex is a pleasurable act.
Imagine a world where people were no longer hinder or held back by the distracting desire for mating? There would be greater productivity, products could be choosen for such traits as how well they actually did the job they were being sold for, not how "sexy" they may make you, etc, etc.
A species that developes a society that no longer needs to fear a de-evolution or breakdown to a former lesser instinctual animalistic behavior will have eliminated and overcome those base instincts and imperatives.
I only sent this in minutes ago, so there is not yet a reply. I'm interested to see where this discussion goes.
Edit: The moderator killed the thread. Damn.
