[ExI] Evolutionary psychology and religion
hkhenson at rogers.com
Tue Dec 11 17:12:52 UTC 2007
At 10:58 PM 12/10/2007, spike wrote:
> > I can't see that breeding--in a pre contraceptive era--needed any
> > religious support. Generally humans populated whatever space they
> > had to the maximum extent possible. Keith
>Ja Keith, I mostly agree, but I was referring to the modern post
Really effective contraception methods are not much more than 100
years old. When talking evolution, that's not enough time.
>In most of human history, reproduction was surely a side
>effect of the satisfaction of sexual urges, which represented the most
>intense pleasure available to humans. Now we know of multiple of paths to
>personal fulfillment that does not involve sexual activity or reproduction.
In the EEA they did and to some extent they still do. For males at
least nothing was more predictive of reproductive success than high
social standing. What motivates us to post? It is the expectation
that doing so will gain us attention and higher social status. Of
course I *risk* social standing by pointing out the dark side of
human nature. (Less so here because most of you are up on EP but I
was lambasted from bench by Judge Whyte about my postings on the
subject where I said the observation applied to me as well as everyone else.)
>One example is what we are doing right now, interacting with like-minded
>people on the internet, daily feeding our brains to a most gratifying
And hopefully absorbing some of the facts about ourselves and the
world around us.
>This is not to say that you, my good friends, are better than sex, quite on
>the contrary. But I can say with honest and heartfelt sincerity that for
>all of you I am grateful, for both your existence and the fact that
>technology lets us reach one another.
It is amazing. The subjects discussed here are hard to talk about
just about anywhere else.
More information about the extropy-chat