#Love: Virtually No Sex(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
#Love: Virtually No Sex
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/14/love-virtually-no-sex/?ncid=rss&cps=gravity
9 comments
It's completely erroneous to think that nature "intends" anything. That would require intellect (at least a little), and that's only within brains, to the best of our knowledge.
Things happen, in evolution and elsewhere, when random chance and external pressures come together.
Things happen, in evolution and elsewhere, when random chance and external pressures come together.
I don't mean "nature" as an explanation for action, as in your second line, but as a guide for it. The context in the article uses it in the guiding sense. My point is that the article uses "nature" in a very short-sighted and artificial sense. I do think that discussion of "nature" can be part of a broader teleology for human action, but that's obviously not what the author is attempted.
"It would seem from the above that men prefer quantity to quality but the reality is somewhat different."
http://www.chrisharding.net/wetherobots/comics/x2008-01-07-M...
http://www.chrisharding.net/wetherobots/comics/x2008-01-07-M...
This part about differences in both sexes approach to dating services (guys going into quantity, girls being flooded with messages). It's 100% true. But Tinder is not the only solution.
Before Tinder we've started to work on Elimi project which blocks contact between girls & guys until the girl will allow selected guy to contact her. And how she does that? By simple task-based games with guys (from 1 to 4 in one game). It seems that people like the idea behind Elimi. You can try it on iOS and Android (beta): http://www.ElimiApp.com
Before Tinder we've started to work on Elimi project which blocks contact between girls & guys until the girl will allow selected guy to contact her. And how she does that? By simple task-based games with guys (from 1 to 4 in one game). It seems that people like the idea behind Elimi. You can try it on iOS and Android (beta): http://www.ElimiApp.com
Thanks, I like the idea in principle. Unfortunately it doesn't (yet) support my old htc desire.
>Those of you who scoff at the idea that people will prefer to have sex with robots rather than each other, be warned: the tipping point is within a generation, and when that tipping point hits, the revolution will happen very quickly.
Shoutout to the webcomic "Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life", which used this as a starting premise ten years ago (scroll right):
https://web.archive.org/web/20040306080712/http://www.bohemi...
Shoutout to the webcomic "Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life", which used this as a starting premise ten years ago (scroll right):
https://web.archive.org/web/20040306080712/http://www.bohemi...
A phrase you sometimes hear, especially in the context of the 1950s and '60s, is "Every generation thinks it invented sex."
Over-literate high-tech corollary: "Every generation thinks it will destroy sex."
That said, there is legitimate bad news. I don't doubt the numbers ascribed to Japan (25% of men and 45% of women having no interest in sex). In the U.S., among people over 25, you'd probably see similar numbers. And this is in spite of (or because of?) an over-the-top sexualized pop culture that is obsessed with adolescence.
In fact, extended adolescence is the problem. Humans have two sex drives. One is r-selective and peaks around 17. The other is K-selective and peaks around 35. Stereotypically, men have a stronger r-drive than women and women have a stronger K-drive. In practice, probably almost all humans have both, and age/gender differentiations are properties of the aggregate. (Differences within groups are greater than those between groups. There are K-heavy young men and r-heavy older women.) The r-selective drive wants variety, escape, and often not a small measure of depravity. It's socially unacceptable and people don't really admit to it, and most would rather ignore it. The K-drive is the wholesome one tied to long-lasting emotional bonds and that built civilization.
Negative stresses provoke the r-drive and squash the K-drive. This makes evolutionary sense, because the r-drive's purpose is to repopulate after a catastrophe, and the K-drive (quality over quantity) flourishes in stability. That's why extreme income inequality is actually dysgenic, despite the love for it by "Social Darwinists". It encourages reckless, r-driven sexuality in rich (to assert power) and poor (to escape). It diminishes the K-drive because people look to the future and don't really want to bring children into it. The result is that you have more people born of r-driven couplings than K-driven, and the r-drive doesn't much care if the other person's intelligent... The good news (and if you don't think this is good news, you're not literate) is that, thanks to birth control, the r-driven couplings rarely produce new people. No one likes when girls go for bad boys (or when men go for useless ditzes) but thank fucking Xenu that those couplings aren't producing new people at anywhere near the historical rate.
Japan actually has a low level of income inequality, compared to the U.S., but it has a hierarchical work culture. Being someone's subordinate for 8-12 hours per day just murders the K-drive. The stress of subordination stokes the r-drive which would, in 700 AD, be inclined to rape and pillage, and with probably less of the pillaging. However, modern society gives a plethora of healthier, legal and less dangerous outlets for that r-drive: pornography, video games, Internet trolling, prostitution, bizarre and often violent cartoon media, or a casual-sex "pickup artist" "Game" that, while still unhealthy and disturbing, is far better than the pre-modern practice of starting a war as an excuse for society to (a) kill off some surplus, low-status men, (b) acquire resources for the low-status men who survive, and (c) give those angry, low-status, otherwise sexless men a chance to rape people. These surrogate activities are much better than their ancient, barbaric predecessors.
In broad strokes, the picture we see is that the pervasive subordination (involuntary extended adolescence) inflicted by corporate dominion squashes the healthy, K-selective, sex drive and that, while it encourages the r-drive, that's one that is best met through means other than sex.
Is this going to kill sex? Nah. Society is sick, and the supposed "sexlessness" trend is one of the ways people are dealing with it. Technology is providing healthy replacements (and sublimations, like video games) for the r-driven sexuality that wasn't much good for human civilization in the first place. K-driven sexuality has been reduced (temporarily) by society's over-reliance on hierarchical work structures that (a) make the vast majority of people subordinates, (b) resulting in an epidemic of involuntary extended adolescence, and (c) make forward-thinking people disinclined to bring children into a broken, burning world. The picture looks bleak, and society is really sick right now, but is society going to die? I doubt it (unless an environmental catastrophe intervenes). I think the culture is at or near a nadir. It might be worse (perhaps a lot worse, perhaps violently worse) in 5 to 10 years, but in 30 years, human civilization will be better than what it is now. And so is sex going to die out? Not a chance.
Over-literate high-tech corollary: "Every generation thinks it will destroy sex."
That said, there is legitimate bad news. I don't doubt the numbers ascribed to Japan (25% of men and 45% of women having no interest in sex). In the U.S., among people over 25, you'd probably see similar numbers. And this is in spite of (or because of?) an over-the-top sexualized pop culture that is obsessed with adolescence.
In fact, extended adolescence is the problem. Humans have two sex drives. One is r-selective and peaks around 17. The other is K-selective and peaks around 35. Stereotypically, men have a stronger r-drive than women and women have a stronger K-drive. In practice, probably almost all humans have both, and age/gender differentiations are properties of the aggregate. (Differences within groups are greater than those between groups. There are K-heavy young men and r-heavy older women.) The r-selective drive wants variety, escape, and often not a small measure of depravity. It's socially unacceptable and people don't really admit to it, and most would rather ignore it. The K-drive is the wholesome one tied to long-lasting emotional bonds and that built civilization.
Negative stresses provoke the r-drive and squash the K-drive. This makes evolutionary sense, because the r-drive's purpose is to repopulate after a catastrophe, and the K-drive (quality over quantity) flourishes in stability. That's why extreme income inequality is actually dysgenic, despite the love for it by "Social Darwinists". It encourages reckless, r-driven sexuality in rich (to assert power) and poor (to escape). It diminishes the K-drive because people look to the future and don't really want to bring children into it. The result is that you have more people born of r-driven couplings than K-driven, and the r-drive doesn't much care if the other person's intelligent... The good news (and if you don't think this is good news, you're not literate) is that, thanks to birth control, the r-driven couplings rarely produce new people. No one likes when girls go for bad boys (or when men go for useless ditzes) but thank fucking Xenu that those couplings aren't producing new people at anywhere near the historical rate.
Japan actually has a low level of income inequality, compared to the U.S., but it has a hierarchical work culture. Being someone's subordinate for 8-12 hours per day just murders the K-drive. The stress of subordination stokes the r-drive which would, in 700 AD, be inclined to rape and pillage, and with probably less of the pillaging. However, modern society gives a plethora of healthier, legal and less dangerous outlets for that r-drive: pornography, video games, Internet trolling, prostitution, bizarre and often violent cartoon media, or a casual-sex "pickup artist" "Game" that, while still unhealthy and disturbing, is far better than the pre-modern practice of starting a war as an excuse for society to (a) kill off some surplus, low-status men, (b) acquire resources for the low-status men who survive, and (c) give those angry, low-status, otherwise sexless men a chance to rape people. These surrogate activities are much better than their ancient, barbaric predecessors.
In broad strokes, the picture we see is that the pervasive subordination (involuntary extended adolescence) inflicted by corporate dominion squashes the healthy, K-selective, sex drive and that, while it encourages the r-drive, that's one that is best met through means other than sex.
Is this going to kill sex? Nah. Society is sick, and the supposed "sexlessness" trend is one of the ways people are dealing with it. Technology is providing healthy replacements (and sublimations, like video games) for the r-driven sexuality that wasn't much good for human civilization in the first place. K-driven sexuality has been reduced (temporarily) by society's over-reliance on hierarchical work structures that (a) make the vast majority of people subordinates, (b) resulting in an epidemic of involuntary extended adolescence, and (c) make forward-thinking people disinclined to bring children into a broken, burning world. The picture looks bleak, and society is really sick right now, but is society going to die? I doubt it (unless an environmental catastrophe intervenes). I think the culture is at or near a nadir. It might be worse (perhaps a lot worse, perhaps violently worse) in 5 to 10 years, but in 30 years, human civilization will be better than what it is now. And so is sex going to die out? Not a chance.
Any references where this K and r drive distinction is put forward?
Wikipedia has a good synopsis of the concept in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_and_K_selection
Worth keeping in mind is that most higher animals (humans included) aren't one or the other. It's a continuum. Higher animals tend toward r-selective patterns of behavior when under stress (to repopulate after a catastrophe) and K-selective patterns in stability.
Worth keeping in mind is that most higher animals (humans included) aren't one or the other. It's a continuum. Higher animals tend toward r-selective patterns of behavior when under stress (to repopulate after a catastrophe) and K-selective patterns in stability.
Proper love is not so easily sublimated, nor is proper sex
I read this from top to bottom and really have no idea what the message of this article is about. It has the word 'sex' in it so it must be interesting, right?
It has a lot of random statements to try and justify the article as interesting. I'd like to see reasons why STDs will be eliminated besides 'because bioengineering' and then he links to an article about HIV 'cure'.
Are there any uncurable STDs left? Anyone who wants to be immune to HIV/AIDS just takes Truvada nowadays and even people who are raped get 30 days of anti-virals to prevent transmission. It's not a problem for the 1% any more, that's for sure, and the technology will filter down eventually.
Antibiotic resistant chlamydia, genital herpes, hpv.
That was just a bit too much for me. Bionic people would still be using condoms - that is just common sense.
Also, will women still be getting pregnant in vivo? Because if so, then 'because bioengineering' wouldn't be sufficient protection from the hollow mutant zombie babies that would be produced (as a side effect of all the _bioengineering_)
Also, will women still be getting pregnant in vivo? Because if so, then 'because bioengineering' wouldn't be sufficient protection from the hollow mutant zombie babies that would be produced (as a side effect of all the _bioengineering_)
I've seen quite a few career women hire surrogate mothers. E.g. their eggs, the guy's sperm, but a different mother. That's certainly something that's only possible due to medical technology. Similarly, the pill was a huge revolution and there are trials for reversible male contraception as well. If all STDs are curable and everyone controls their fertility by better means, why would you bother with a condom that removes the sense of touch for one of the parties?
I have no idea either.
All I clicked on was that survey about Japan not liking sex because I've seen it across the internet in the last few days.
The survey reports a sample size of about 9000, which only encapsulates a few thousand in the younger brackets.
Out of 120 million people I don't find that sample set really indicative of the sex life of Japanese people. Let alone taking account into how easily fallible surveys are, especially when asking about peoples sex lives.
All I clicked on was that survey about Japan not liking sex because I've seen it across the internet in the last few days.
The survey reports a sample size of about 9000, which only encapsulates a few thousand in the younger brackets.
Out of 120 million people I don't find that sample set really indicative of the sex life of Japanese people. Let alone taking account into how easily fallible surveys are, especially when asking about peoples sex lives.
"only a few thousand"?
Since when is a few thousand not enough to get significant results from a survey?
Since when is a few thousand not enough to get significant results from a survey?
I can't actually find how they calculated the quote "Look to Japan to see the start of this growing trend: over 25 percent of young men and 45 percent of young woman say they are no longer interested in sex,"
Here is the link to the survey, can anyone else point it out for me http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp
Here is the link to the survey, can anyone else point it out for me http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp
It's just a weird statement to make either way.
- Just because you say you are not interested in sex, does not mean you aren't having sex or having lots of it.
- "They are no longer interested", when were they? when was anybody?
- Do they mean completely uninterested? Or just less of a priority?
All statistics aside, what does it even mean to not be interested in sex? Not chasing sex? Pure abstinence? No casual sex?
- Just because you say you are not interested in sex, does not mean you aren't having sex or having lots of it.
- "They are no longer interested", when were they? when was anybody?
- Do they mean completely uninterested? Or just less of a priority?
All statistics aside, what does it even mean to not be interested in sex? Not chasing sex? Pure abstinence? No casual sex?
depends on how representative the sample is? But yeah, a few thousand _might_ be good enough if you are able to pick sufficiently randomly - but still from each representative class!
Yes of course, but it's a bit unfair to dismiss a survey you have not read on the basis of it being 'only' over 9000 people out of 120M, when that same amount in a properly set up investigation would be more than enough to make significant claims about a population of 300M.
We can of course theorize about whether or not all classes where properly represented, and of course we can't immediately regard the results as absolute truth, but the fact is that this was a serious survey and should be treated as such until review has shown otherwise.
We can of course theorize about whether or not all classes where properly represented, and of course we can't immediately regard the results as absolute truth, but the fact is that this was a serious survey and should be treated as such until review has shown otherwise.
Okay, I looked into it more.
So Techcrunch references the quote below from the Guardian.
"Look to Japan to see the start of this growing trend: over 25 percent of young men and 45 percent of young woman say they are no longer interested in sex."
The Guardian makes this quote;
"The number of single people has reached a record high. A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier"
and references the formal study that is linked in the top comment and the one I also linked.
http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp
But this quote that Techcrunch took from the Guardian;
" A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact". More than a quarter of men felt the same way."
... is linked to another study. Well they don't actually link to the study, just to the homepage of the people who did.
http://www.jfpa.or.jp/
Which has in the website title, "Every Child a Wanted Child", which isn't quite likely to be as unbiased as the official census linked above.
Now I'm trying to track down the actual study which hasn't been referenced by either Techcrunch or The Guardian which has the major quote they are selling their articles with.
Edit: Huffington Post ran a similar article with the same reference, they linked to this article as the source
http://www.medindia.net/news/Government-Says-Young-Japanese-...
That article also does not have a reference to the survey.
So Techcrunch references the quote below from the Guardian.
"Look to Japan to see the start of this growing trend: over 25 percent of young men and 45 percent of young woman say they are no longer interested in sex."
The Guardian makes this quote;
"The number of single people has reached a record high. A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier"
and references the formal study that is linked in the top comment and the one I also linked.
http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp
But this quote that Techcrunch took from the Guardian;
" A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact". More than a quarter of men felt the same way."
... is linked to another study. Well they don't actually link to the study, just to the homepage of the people who did.
http://www.jfpa.or.jp/
Which has in the website title, "Every Child a Wanted Child", which isn't quite likely to be as unbiased as the official census linked above.
Now I'm trying to track down the actual study which hasn't been referenced by either Techcrunch or The Guardian which has the major quote they are selling their articles with.
Edit: Huffington Post ran a similar article with the same reference, they linked to this article as the source
http://www.medindia.net/news/Government-Says-Young-Japanese-...
That article also does not have a reference to the survey.
Aha I went on some huge investigative journalism trip.
Finally I found what I was looking for, the entire sex-less youth of Japan sentiment is a sham.
This guy writes about the whole ordeal and how it began.
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/suckers/
And the relevant quote;
"In other words, the Internet was agog over a report that 22 males and 38 females aged 16-19 said either that they had no interest in sex or despised it. When the Huffington Post spun this story as “a third of the nation’s youth” disliking sex, they were basing it on the response of 60 self-selected people."
Finally I found what I was looking for, the entire sex-less youth of Japan sentiment is a sham.
This guy writes about the whole ordeal and how it began.
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/suckers/
And the relevant quote;
"In other words, the Internet was agog over a report that 22 males and 38 females aged 16-19 said either that they had no interest in sex or despised it. When the Huffington Post spun this story as “a third of the nation’s youth” disliking sex, they were basing it on the response of 60 self-selected people."
Haha, very nice work! So let me get this straight. They selected only 3000 people from 16-49 (not 9000), then of those, they managed to find the addresses of only 2693 to give them the survey, and then only 1540 actually did the survey. Of those 1540 just 126 were between ages 16 and 19, and from those slightly under half, so 60 people, said the thing that was quoted.
That's some serious sensationalism going on..
That's some serious sensationalism going on..
My housemates were just talking about this Japanese issue yesterday and coming up with all sorts of conclusions and hypotheses as to why this cultural phenomenon might occur, when actually there is no hard evidence that it exists!
From what I can tell the article suggests that technology will A) increase our ability to have sex safely and B) decrease our desire to do so.
The quote, "Look to Japan to see the start of this growing trend: over 25 percent of young men and 45 percent of young woman say they are no longer interested in sex," is spurious[^1]. It is based on a shallow survey [^2] of a few Japanese men and woman who were put on the spot in a conservative culture.
[^1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-ja... [^2]: http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp
[^1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-ja... [^2]: http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp
Indeed.
I'll believe many things will change as cultures shift and fashions come and go but the idea young people are no longer interested in sex would fall into the category of extraordinary claims thus requiring extraordinary evidence.
Cordelia: So does looking at guns really make girls wanna have sex? That's scary.
Xander: Yeah, I guess.
Cordelia: Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?
Xander: I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.
[from Buffy the Vampire Slayer obv.]
I don't think that conversation will ever not ring true.
I'll believe many things will change as cultures shift and fashions come and go but the idea young people are no longer interested in sex would fall into the category of extraordinary claims thus requiring extraordinary evidence.
Cordelia: So does looking at guns really make girls wanna have sex? That's scary.
Xander: Yeah, I guess.
Cordelia: Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?
Xander: I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex.
[from Buffy the Vampire Slayer obv.]
I don't think that conversation will ever not ring true.
There is some studies that seem to indicate declining interest in sex. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/dating/s...
The percentage of those who claim virginity appears to be increasing, according to a National Center for Health Statistics study released this month of 2006-08 data. Among 18- and 19-year-olds, about one-quarter of men and women said they hadn't had sexual contact with another person, up from 17% of women and 22% of men in 2002. Among those ages 20-24, 12% of women and 13% of men said they were virgins, up from 8% for both sexes in 2002.
It's fairly weak evidence so far. Never the less, I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the kids might someday find something more captivating than sex.
The percentage of those who claim virginity appears to be increasing, according to a National Center for Health Statistics study released this month of 2006-08 data. Among 18- and 19-year-olds, about one-quarter of men and women said they hadn't had sexual contact with another person, up from 17% of women and 22% of men in 2002. Among those ages 20-24, 12% of women and 13% of men said they were virgins, up from 8% for both sexes in 2002.
It's fairly weak evidence so far. Never the less, I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the kids might someday find something more captivating than sex.
> Among 18- and 19-year-olds, about one-quarter of men and women said they hadn't had sexual contact with another person, up from 17% of women and 22% of men in 2002.
For much of my teenage years I didn't have sexual contact with another person but I can assure you it wasn't down to a lack of interest.
>Among those ages 20-24, 12% of women and 13% of men said they were virgins, up from 8% for both sexes in 2002.
Ditto.
For much of my teenage years I didn't have sexual contact with another person but I can assure you it wasn't down to a lack of interest.
>Among those ages 20-24, 12% of women and 13% of men said they were virgins, up from 8% for both sexes in 2002.
Ditto.
Perhaps you've forgotten your own adolescence, or perhaps you were lucky enough not to have trouble finding interested partners. But I feel it necessary to point out that, especially among teenagers, "never been laid" does not at all imply "doesn't want to be laid". (I'd have thought this trivially obvious to anyone over the age of say twelve, but...)
No reason to assume everyone works like you. My teen years was spent busily writing code and I had no interest in sex or the opposite gender. It's not implausible that the fraction of the population working like me could increase over time.
I spent plenty of time writing code in my teenage years, too. They're hardly mutually exclusive.
Even if somehow technology led to celibacy, the fact that people that embrace technology leave no descendants, will give selection pressure to Luddites.
Summary: if everyone is boning robots and not having children, then people that don't bone robots will become most numerous.
Note: this is all of course assuming that children can be given birth only via non-technological means.
Summary: if everyone is boning robots and not having children, then people that don't bone robots will become most numerous.
Note: this is all of course assuming that children can be given birth only via non-technological means.
This is like saying that using a heater will cool you down, because eventually we'll run out of gas. The article may have a point in one of many possible future realities, but not in the one we currently live in.
There is something that feels a little dystopian about this article. Not in the George Orwell sense but more the Aldous Huxley sense. In Huxley's "Brave New World" the masses are brought under control, not by force or direct intimidation, but by reducing them to decadence and self-indulgence.
To quote Wikipedia's article on Brave New World as it discussed how the authorities maintain their totalitarian rule; "Recreational sex is an integral part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction and, as part of the conditioning process, is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt," a cartridge belt holding "the regulation supply of contraceptives" worn as a fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Thus, society has developed a totally different idea of relationships, lifestyle and reproductive comprehension."
People treat articles like this Tech Crunch piece as if they are somehow liberating but, to me, the tone of statements like this are soul-less: "If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction".
Sure, the elimination of sexually transmitted diseases would be a great thing, but to herald it primarily for the potential of the self-centered orgy it might bring is downright depressing and reeks of a man who has never had meaningful sex.
The assumption "as nature intended" would pass as propaganda in Huxley's writings.
I saw this quote from Neil Postman on HN some time ago and I think it is fitting in this instance:
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."
To quote Wikipedia's article on Brave New World as it discussed how the authorities maintain their totalitarian rule; "Recreational sex is an integral part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction and, as part of the conditioning process, is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt," a cartridge belt holding "the regulation supply of contraceptives" worn as a fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Thus, society has developed a totally different idea of relationships, lifestyle and reproductive comprehension."
People treat articles like this Tech Crunch piece as if they are somehow liberating but, to me, the tone of statements like this are soul-less: "If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction".
Sure, the elimination of sexually transmitted diseases would be a great thing, but to herald it primarily for the potential of the self-centered orgy it might bring is downright depressing and reeks of a man who has never had meaningful sex.
The assumption "as nature intended" would pass as propaganda in Huxley's writings.
I saw this quote from Neil Postman on HN some time ago and I think it is fitting in this instance:
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."
This is probably one of my absolute favorite comments I've read on Hacker News.
I think the scary part is that we have some mild but very real examples of these two dystopian visions in the world today. There are many Orwellian-ish regimes (e.g. North Korea, or to a very small extent the UK and its constant surveillance). But as can be seen, oftentimes this leads to a revolution and the regime falls.
But on the other hand, much of the western world today is more akin to Huxley's dystopia. American culture and society today is a fantastic example of being drowned in indulgence and stupidity, and being controlled by it. Just watch the constant pointless bickering on cable news for an example of this.
This kind of dystopia is much much harder to escape. There's nothing really to revolt against, because our stupidity & indulgence is our own captor.
Now, of course, both of these dystopian visions are extremes, and the real world is much more nuanced. But that's the purpose of literature; to make a caricature that we can use to more clearly see patterns in the real world.
I think the scary part is that we have some mild but very real examples of these two dystopian visions in the world today. There are many Orwellian-ish regimes (e.g. North Korea, or to a very small extent the UK and its constant surveillance). But as can be seen, oftentimes this leads to a revolution and the regime falls.
But on the other hand, much of the western world today is more akin to Huxley's dystopia. American culture and society today is a fantastic example of being drowned in indulgence and stupidity, and being controlled by it. Just watch the constant pointless bickering on cable news for an example of this.
This kind of dystopia is much much harder to escape. There's nothing really to revolt against, because our stupidity & indulgence is our own captor.
Now, of course, both of these dystopian visions are extremes, and the real world is much more nuanced. But that's the purpose of literature; to make a caricature that we can use to more clearly see patterns in the real world.
I would say it's not necessarily our stupidity that is our captor, but our self indulgence. Personally, my waistline seems to be expanding - this is not (necessarily) because I'm stupid, but more likely to do with the fact that I like bacon so darn much that I refuse to give it up.
You're right, I agree. It's a combination of indulgence, narcissism, and stupidity; different people may fall more into some of these than others. And luckily for us, we have a lot of smart people who think different, so I don't think we're doomed either.
If my experience (which includes shedding thirty pounds in the last month and a half) is any guide, the trick is not to swear off bacon entirely; indeed, try to do that and you're just setting yourself up for a discipline-vitiating failure, as I'm sure you have discovered.
Quick fixes don't work. What works is making smaller changes pervasively, in an incremental fashion. Trying to fix everything all at once, by dint of flailing, unsustainable effort, guarantees that you will fail, and end up feeling worse about yourself. Identifying one practicable improvement at a time, and making a solid habit of it before you go on to the next, is the way to a sustainably healthier life.
For example: Weight loss depends on burning more calories than you take in. I started by investing in a Basis band, and spent a week both building the habit of wearing it and getting baseline data on how many calories I burn in a day.
Then I started changing my relationship with food; where before I would eat to repletion at every meal, I instead now eat only enough to quell the pangs of hunger somewhat, and a healthier diet besides.
Once I had that pretty well in hand, I started logging everything I eat and counting calories, which has two benefits: since I'm writing everything down, there's a permanent record when I cheat, and the calorie log quantifies the daily difference between calories in and calories out. (Lately I'm running at a deficit of ca. 1500/day, which probably sounds agonizing -- but, having built the habits I describe, it's actually quite sustainable.)
Then I started logging my daily weight, too. That helps quantify the improvement I'm making, and also makes it easier to identify particularly effective or ineffective behaviors -- for example, I'm planning to add a weekly fasting day to my routine, and without the weight data, I'd have no way to tell whether doing so is worthwhile. (And it is powerfully motivating to chart weight over date and see that line sloping down!)
Then I bought a bike and added it to my daily routine. Time was, when I needed a pack of smokes or a couple cans of cat food, I'd get in my car and burn gas to go get them. Now I get on my bike and burn calories instead -- and it's not just cardio, either; every hill I go up strengthens my thigh muscles, and Baltimore is a hilly town. The Basis band logs my rides for me, but I'd do so by hand if I needed to.
Then I started doing a few sit-ups in the morning and a few more in the evening, and a few push-ups as well, so as not to neglect my arm or abdominal muscles. I log these, too, in order to keep track of what I've done or haven't; I haven't done much with that data yet, but it'll be handy when the time comes, fifty pounds or so hence, to change focus from losing weight per se, to maintaining fitness while building lean muscle.
Looking over all I've just written, I probably come off slightly nutty on the subject, I think. But the point is precisely that I'm not, nor need I be; by focusing on one thing at a time, and establishing it as a habit before going on to the next, I've been able to make my life healthier in a durable and effective way, without at any point inflicting on myself the need for superhuman reserves of self-discipline.
It's not that I don't indulge, either! I eat bacon and barbecue and everything else I love. But I don't do that every day, or even most days, but rather maybe once in a couple of weeks -- and that way, not only do I lose weight at a steady clip, but when I do indulge, it's a real treat, more enjoyable by its very rarity than if I ate more sumptuously every day.
If you're inclined to improve your own waistline, I hope my experience is of use to you. Good luck!
Quick fixes don't work. What works is making smaller changes pervasively, in an incremental fashion. Trying to fix everything all at once, by dint of flailing, unsustainable effort, guarantees that you will fail, and end up feeling worse about yourself. Identifying one practicable improvement at a time, and making a solid habit of it before you go on to the next, is the way to a sustainably healthier life.
For example: Weight loss depends on burning more calories than you take in. I started by investing in a Basis band, and spent a week both building the habit of wearing it and getting baseline data on how many calories I burn in a day.
Then I started changing my relationship with food; where before I would eat to repletion at every meal, I instead now eat only enough to quell the pangs of hunger somewhat, and a healthier diet besides.
Once I had that pretty well in hand, I started logging everything I eat and counting calories, which has two benefits: since I'm writing everything down, there's a permanent record when I cheat, and the calorie log quantifies the daily difference between calories in and calories out. (Lately I'm running at a deficit of ca. 1500/day, which probably sounds agonizing -- but, having built the habits I describe, it's actually quite sustainable.)
Then I started logging my daily weight, too. That helps quantify the improvement I'm making, and also makes it easier to identify particularly effective or ineffective behaviors -- for example, I'm planning to add a weekly fasting day to my routine, and without the weight data, I'd have no way to tell whether doing so is worthwhile. (And it is powerfully motivating to chart weight over date and see that line sloping down!)
Then I bought a bike and added it to my daily routine. Time was, when I needed a pack of smokes or a couple cans of cat food, I'd get in my car and burn gas to go get them. Now I get on my bike and burn calories instead -- and it's not just cardio, either; every hill I go up strengthens my thigh muscles, and Baltimore is a hilly town. The Basis band logs my rides for me, but I'd do so by hand if I needed to.
Then I started doing a few sit-ups in the morning and a few more in the evening, and a few push-ups as well, so as not to neglect my arm or abdominal muscles. I log these, too, in order to keep track of what I've done or haven't; I haven't done much with that data yet, but it'll be handy when the time comes, fifty pounds or so hence, to change focus from losing weight per se, to maintaining fitness while building lean muscle.
Looking over all I've just written, I probably come off slightly nutty on the subject, I think. But the point is precisely that I'm not, nor need I be; by focusing on one thing at a time, and establishing it as a habit before going on to the next, I've been able to make my life healthier in a durable and effective way, without at any point inflicting on myself the need for superhuman reserves of self-discipline.
It's not that I don't indulge, either! I eat bacon and barbecue and everything else I love. But I don't do that every day, or even most days, but rather maybe once in a couple of weeks -- and that way, not only do I lose weight at a steady clip, but when I do indulge, it's a real treat, more enjoyable by its very rarity than if I ate more sumptuously every day.
If you're inclined to improve your own waistline, I hope my experience is of use to you. Good luck!
[deleted]
One of my favorites too, even though I disagree with seeing both Orwell's and Huxley's visions of future as some kind of dead end.
It's hard for me to imagine something like that lasting for more than 2 generations. Quite contrary, I'm seeing it as a possible catalyst for radical change to something quite positive.
It's hard for me to imagine something like that lasting for more than 2 generations. Quite contrary, I'm seeing it as a possible catalyst for radical change to something quite positive.
Agreed; O'Brien's boot metaphor was purest hubris. I don't know if I'd call civilizational collapse "positive", though. Surely things will get better afterward! Things always do, eventually. But, judging by history, we'll be in for a rather ugly interregnum in the meantime, one marked by the sway of Hobbes's dictum ("...nasty, brutish, and short"), by constant insufficiency in all the material necessities of life, and by all manner of short-lived but violent popular enthusiasms; in general, a world fit only for those young enough to love chaos, and one harsh even for them.
I don't fear for the species; we're tough bastards and can survive anything short of heat death. But I would like to think that some day we'll work out the trick of anakyklosis and finally have done with dark ages.
I don't fear for the species; we're tough bastards and can survive anything short of heat death. But I would like to think that some day we'll work out the trick of anakyklosis and finally have done with dark ages.
> O'Brien's boot metaphor was purest hubris
It's quite possible Orwell agreed with you there. One thing not everyone notices is that the Newspeak appendix to 1984 is written in the past tense.
It's quite possible Orwell agreed with you there. One thing not everyone notices is that the Newspeak appendix to 1984 is written in the past tense.
Interesting point. Huxley's vision of the future would become a dead end when another entity sees our pleasure-induced ineptitude as their opportunity to pounce
very well written and in my opinion a very fair comment to make. This is what brings me to HN, quality of the discussion is much better than any other place.
I think it's clear that the author of the techcrunch article intended to sound provocative and most likely the article doesn't reflect his own views (and neither mine for that matter). However in your criticism you are simply moralizing, presuming that everyone should share your own ideal of sexuality and relationships. If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, you should probably refrain from subjective ideals and list more substantial threats (which there certainly are), rather than simply drawing the image of a (in your eyes) dystopian future.
Arguably the article is the one that's moralizing, with its comment about "as nature intended." As to your other point, devaluation of procreation and family is as substantial a threat as it gets.
Anecdote: having a kid has made me a little crazy. Every now and then, someone will do something like ignore the "yield to pedestrians" sign on a crosswalk, and come a little too close to clipping my daughter's stroller. When that happens, I literally, not figuratively, want to drag the person out of their car and beat them with the stroller. I can't help it, it's a brain-stem level parental instinct: first eliminate threats to your kids, ask questions later.
Familial bonds are a primitive and powerful force with little comparison in the human experience. Huxley was incredibly insightful in realizing that if you really wanted to control a society, make it docile, you have to break down these bonds and mitigate the threat they represent.
Anecdote: having a kid has made me a little crazy. Every now and then, someone will do something like ignore the "yield to pedestrians" sign on a crosswalk, and come a little too close to clipping my daughter's stroller. When that happens, I literally, not figuratively, want to drag the person out of their car and beat them with the stroller. I can't help it, it's a brain-stem level parental instinct: first eliminate threats to your kids, ask questions later.
Familial bonds are a primitive and powerful force with little comparison in the human experience. Huxley was incredibly insightful in realizing that if you really wanted to control a society, make it docile, you have to break down these bonds and mitigate the threat they represent.
> it's a brain-stem level parental instinct
Yep. We live on a quiet, somewhat-narrow street. There are always quite a few young families living on the block. Occasionally, a car will go speeding through the block to avoid a nearby stoplight. When our kids were little, every now and then we'd be in the front yard, chatting with neighbors, with various kids playing here and there. When a speeder came roaring our way, I would sometimes literally step into the street, stop the speeder, and "counsel" him (it always was a him) about safe driving with little kids around. Twenty years later, with our kids grown and gone, I don't have nearly so intense a reaction.
Yep. We live on a quiet, somewhat-narrow street. There are always quite a few young families living on the block. Occasionally, a car will go speeding through the block to avoid a nearby stoplight. When our kids were little, every now and then we'd be in the front yard, chatting with neighbors, with various kids playing here and there. When a speeder came roaring our way, I would sometimes literally step into the street, stop the speeder, and "counsel" him (it always was a him) about safe driving with little kids around. Twenty years later, with our kids grown and gone, I don't have nearly so intense a reaction.
We had a neighbor that did that; he'd hang out on the porch with a bullhorn and chase after cars. It always scared the crap out of me, because some of the people speeding down our street are probably not smart to mess with.
From 'Rayiner's comment:
> first eliminate threats to your kids, ask questions later
I just remembered another story on point from a few years back: A mother charged with her fists into a 700-pound polar bear that was stalking her 7-year old son. [1]
[1] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/good_news_bad_n....
> first eliminate threats to your kids, ask questions later
I just remembered another story on point from a few years back: A mother charged with her fists into a 700-pound polar bear that was stalking her 7-year old son. [1]
[1] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/good_news_bad_n....
> he'd hang out on the porch with a bullhorn and chase after cars
Oh, now that's downright odd; I was never anywhere close to that premeditated.
Oh, now that's downright odd; I was never anywhere close to that premeditated.
[deleted]
While my brief comment history will confirm that I completely agree with your analysis of Orwellian vs. Huxleyan dystopias, and agree completely about the greater relevance of Huxley's vision to our cultures, I'd nevertheless be reluctant to equate sexual liberation with Huxley's fears. You're absolutely right about his having written about sexual indulgence in that way, and about pleasure-seeking being the opiate that destroys his population's ability to reflect meaningfully on life; but there's something to be said for finding the best expression of human nature and removing its impediments too. Pleasure corrupts, but so does frustration and repression.
What's to be desired is a culture that educates its individuals about how to safely and virtuously find their own happiness with a minimum of self-indulgent excess or Victorian hand-wringing. A more sexually liberated culture isn't necessarily a step in the wrong direction, though the pendulum could certainly swing too far.
What's to be desired is a culture that educates its individuals about how to safely and virtuously find their own happiness with a minimum of self-indulgent excess or Victorian hand-wringing. A more sexually liberated culture isn't necessarily a step in the wrong direction, though the pendulum could certainly swing too far.
Bottom line, is that both societies depicted would be vulnerable to some sort of threat. Both societies seem heavily stagnant. Such societies can easily be disrupted by their relations with friendly and hostile neighbors degrading or just being wiped by an gradual or extreme environmental change (for example meteor).
The only way forward is by having diverse societies spread around multiple planets in various parts of galaxy.
The only way forward is by having diverse societies spread around multiple planets in various parts of galaxy.
That would be one option; my preferred, immediate option (prior to Elon Musk establishing civilization on Mars), would be to not elevate things (like sex) to the point where they own us, or can be used to own us.
Am I incorrect to make this truncation? Because it kind of blows my mind.
"a world without [..] pregnancy [..] will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended"
Not too mention that "the first time in thousands of years" implies this situation existed previously, but then didn't for thousands of years... the writer got kind of carried away, that's for sure.
"a world without [..] pregnancy [..] will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended"
Not too mention that "the first time in thousands of years" implies this situation existed previously, but then didn't for thousands of years... the writer got kind of carried away, that's for sure.
yeah that line sure seems pretty bizarre. The article assumes self determinism for the human race but oh wait, there is this benevolent 'nature' who wants you to have unrestricted sex without all those frustrating side effects.....like pregnancy.
Even though, when people have sex - pregnancy happens... naturally.
Even though, when people have sex - pregnancy happens... naturally.
[deleted]
If this is how nature intended, why does it require thousands of years of technological progress to get there?