Perfect society

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sometimes political debate ends up mostly being about taxes up or down, yes or no to some small pitifull question which doesn't really matter and where both alternatives are bad in one way or another, and so on. Often when we're too used to certain society structures we tend to give up fighting for the best possible scenario, and end up fighting for avoiding the scenario to get worse than it is. I think that in order to achieve anything lasting and important in politics, you must define what the ultimate, perfect goal of those politics should be, then keep that in the back of your head whenever you make a political decision on the lower level. You may use either a reactionary or radical way of achieving this desired society, but in defining your goal you have to be totally radical, or you'll get locked by what earlier humans did when creating society, and given the history of and the purposes of most society structures (getting power and using the people for own purposes and struggles), that can never be a good thing.

So, I'd like to discuss this simple thing - what is a perfect society, what are the goals we should strive towards? Preferably don't mention secondary goals, but rather the primary goals. For instance, getting money is no primary goal, but getting the food you can buy for money is a primary goal.

Here's my definition of perfect society:
- no large scale conflicts between groups
- the survival of one group should not threaten the survival of another group, so that no group has a reason to fight another simply for the purpose of surviving.
- no group should be allowed to breed children en masse so that other groups are threatened in their survival. Reproduction should be on natural levels.
- every group should have a fixed area of land, with very large neutral buffer zones in between them
- people should live in the same group their entire lives, so that they can't: 1. be mean and then go elsewhere to be mean again. If they're mean they'll have to compensate for what they did, and compensate it in front of the group they were mean to. 2. feel alienated by constantly moving around between different groups. 3. when a group has been joined long enough, all types of sexual rival fighting tends to get calmer, and the group experiences full inner harmony. When new groups are formed, people need to measure themselves over and over again, feeling frustrated. When moving between many different groups, different status in different groups may lead to confusion, and it's very common that people who get problems in one group go to another and punish them for what the other group did to them.
- movement of people back and forth between the groups should be limited, and the buffer zones in combination with this would result in less spread of disease, which would mean much less suffering for mankind.
- all within the group should be dependent on each other in order to survive genetically in several ways, so that internal fights will punish whoever starts it because he'll wipe out himself in the process. This is achieved by a group status where women need the men to hunt for them, at least when they're pregnant, men need women to look after the children, and the men need each other in order to be able to successfully form a hunting team, and women need each other to form a successful team that can chase away predators when guarding the children. The groups should be around 500 persons large, so that inbreeding will be the result if people don't choose their partners according to their instincts. That way, there will be no unhappy love. This will also ensure that the group needs most individuals to take part in the reproduction, and that groups where a single male or female does most of the reproduction gets punished by inbreeding the group.
- there should be no laws. Very often, laws cause more problems than they solve. Scornful behavior and provoking people into committing crimes would never exist unless those guilty of it knew that they'd be protected by the police against those they make angry. The society structure should be so free of threats that nobody goes nuts and carries out killing or raping or anything like that. If someone would commit a crime of that type, that person should be killed, simply because he treatens the group, and it should be clear that it's ethically justified to do so and those who do so should not have bad conscience in any way. No punishments will have the character of being acts of some concept of "justice", they'll simply be practical deeds and as long as nobody behaves like a very real threat to the group, they'll have no problems. The ethical rules will be based on values that all humans share, and only situations where the ethical view of all humans is similar should be allowed to arise, so that there's never any conflicts about ethical values in any situation.
- the society structure should be kept constant so that suffering will be minimized. Whenever a society structure changes, it creates a different evolutionary pressure which removes people by driving them to suicide, stress, losing their will to reproduce and so on. If society is constant, the suffering and removal of individuals in painful ways is minimized. Death penalty has no effect at all in a changing society, but in a constant society it will help removing people who form a threat. Removing those who form a threat to the survival is self-defense in such a case. The society must however be completely perfect and fair for death penalty to be justified. If used, it should be used to punish crimes such as killing and rape.
- if there are any sexual rank fights, those should be decided by fight without weapons until either side gives up. It's up to the weaker part to be sensible enough to give up in such a case. Today's society where the weaker part gets society power and guns and kill the stronger isn't acceptable. But humans and closely related animals hardly ever decide partner choice as much by fight as by love instincts (i.e. correct matchup seems more important than survival strength alone), so this should hardly ever occur.
- there should be less than 4 hours of work per day to grant survival.
- the mutual need of the genders would result in oppression of neither men nor women, and lead to mutual respect.
- the lack of beauty ideals, stress, 8 hours work per day plus 4 hours travel plus domestic work would result in inner harmony for most people.
- there should be clear guarantees that no groups will ever become a threat to your group through breaking the rules mentioned above, through: 1. making it impossible for several groups to gather and achieve numeral superiority, 2. making it easy to see when a group is preparing any acts of war or similar, 3. any group which starts hostility andn refuses to move back despite warnings should, by combined actions from all nearby groups, be exterminated completely.
- the knowledge about other groups should be good and the insight in what they do good enough to assure that people don't fear the other groups being a threat of any kind.
- all people should have a good knowledge about philosophy, history and similar things so that they know how to, and why to avoid wars and conflicts of any kinds. The society structure must be made in such a way that any evil action punishes itself, more or less, so that a person that thinks rationally sees no advantage in committing evil actions. Similarly, a person thinking instinctively should also not see any advantage in evil acts. In such a society very few would end up committing evil acts.
- no paperwork, no taxes, no control, total freedom. This does not mean that the poor and needing aren't helped. It is in the interest of the group to help any of it's members through hard times.
- nobody should have any clothes ~D (well, above 40 years olds should be an exception...)
- free sex and love, but I believe free sex and love would in practice mean most people would choose a single partner of the opposite sex, but with a large portion also choosing not to.

This is the natural pre-civilization society, and I think it's very much a perfect society. Only weakness it really has is that if humans are placed in it, they'll immediately be foolish enough to think they'd gain anything from breaking the rules of it and create a civilization, start wars with each others, commit genocide, persecute followers of different religions or ethnical groups, start misunderstanding each others so that conflicts are created, start murdering and raping so that laws are needed, start becoming alienated, start inventing technology for the purpose of needing to work less but ending up working 3 times as much per day, starting to feminize men and make women become males (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54353) etc. etc.

I look forward to an interesting discussion...

[BDC]

I think if people just thought properly before doing things then life would go much smoother.

[Strike For The South]

No Religion; that's the hard part. The rest would be gravy.

Yeah becuase Stalin Mao Hitler the were great guys right the easy part you watch if religon never happens the wrold is already over :book:

[Zharakov]

NO RELIGION!!!

THAT IS TIRENY!!!

I will believe what I want, when and where I feel like it!


Why must I give up my rights for someone ells?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

1. The Government has complete control, however, it's job is to do what is best for the people and for the advancement of humanity.
2. No welfare or other such free rides through life. It only hurts the recipiant and hurts the taxpayers even more.
3. The Church and the Government are one and the same, they shall cooperate on all issues and any outlaw of religion is tyrrany.
4. Criminals=dead.
5. Latin is a national langauge.
6. Illegal immigrants have no rights. Whatsoever.
7. All Citizens shall own a firearm, and citizen miltias shall make up for the national guard.
8. Military society: The military shall take it's rightful place as the most honorable and noble profession.
9. Any children with below-average IQs shall be taken out of school and put in factories.
10. Any laws restricting the econemy and such shall be abolished immediatly, except for one outlawing outsourcing. Other than that, the Government shall take a laizze faire stance on econemy. Capitalism.
11. Reintroduction of the Estate System and Aristocracy.
12. The beleif that while all men are born equal, some become greater than others through deeds and virtues.

[Zharakov]

That is similer to what I said in my "If you ruled the world" page...


~:cheers:

[Strike For The South]

1. The federal goverment will have as little power as possible just enought to keep us going
2. NO WELFARE
3.Freedom of all religon as long as you dont eat anyone its fine
4. Better public school systems
5. Cost less to get into college
6. Drinking age lowered to 18
7. Screw the space progam that 100 billion goes to something meanigful like curing cancer
8. Low Taxes
9. Cut 95% of forigen aid
10. Spend more on the military
11. Free healthcare
12. We dont take nothing from nobody you attack us we take your oil and nuke your people
13. No outsourcing
14. Guns for everyone and courses on how to shoot no goverment of mine is going to stab in the back
15. You are an illegal and we find you the 1st time you go back the 2nd time we shoot ya
16. LEARN ENGLISH

[The_Doctor]

Become the Borg from Star Trek.

Resistance is futile.

[The_Doctor]

1. The federal goverment will have as little power as possible just enought to keep us going
2. NO WELFARE
3.Freedom of all religon as long as you dont eat anyone its fine
4. Better public school systems
5. Cost less to get into college
6. Drinking age lowered to 18
7. Screw the space progam that 100 billion goes to something meanigful like curing cancer
8. Low Taxes
9. Cut 95% of forigen aid
10. Spend more on the military
11. Free healthcare
12. We dont take nothing from nobody you attack us we take your oil and nuke your people
13. No outsourcing

Some of this seems to contradict other parts of it.

[Strike For The South]

Some of this seems to contradict other parts of it.

like what

[Kaiser of Arabia]

13. Lower taxes but increase tarrifs to aid in buying home made goods.
14. No space program. With that money, we shall expand our traditionalist military (i.e. none of this new-fangled technology, just old fashioned skill. Which counts.), missile and nuclear programs, and into mass-production and expansion of our armored forces.
15. Low-level criminals shall have thier blood types and offenses tattoed on their arm to idendify them. Repeat offenders shall be shot.
16. Public displays of homosexuality are to be outlawed and be punishable by Capital means.
17. Prisoners of War shall be used for labor and medical experiments to help expand our great and glorious nation.
18. Rap and Pop is to be outlawed and such degenerative lifestyles are to be purged from the glorious Fatherland.
19. The safety and security of the nation is more important than any man's life.
20. Socialists and Communists are to be exiled or used as targets in our military training ranges.

[The_Doctor]

NO WELFARE
+
Free healthcare

Most poeple would consider free health apart of a welfare state.

Unless when you say welfare you mean benefits.


Better public school systems
Spend more on the military
Free healthcare
+
Low Taxes

How are you going to pay for all this?

I suppose it could come from the space programme that you want to end. :furious3: Or the forigen aid.

[Strike For The South]

Cut the stuff we dont need and put the money to use

[The_Doctor]

Cut the stuff we dont need and put the money to use

Ok then.

Borg drones would be much easier.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Get rid of the aid and space and he could afford it.




Capo.....you are starting to scare me. Small government is much better then big government,

[Xiahou]

Perfect society? Not possible.

There's no way it could ever happen without making slaves out of everyone, and that would hardly be perfect. As long as we have any freedoms there will always be problems- that's just the way it is. I can't even conceive of a "perfect society".

Sorry to crap all over your thread. ~D

[Beirut]

If big brother gets to intrusive I hope the people rise up and kill all the government officials.

Let us keep statements like this to a minimum if not not-at-all shall we? Hmmm?

[scooter_the_shooter]

Thats right big bro is watching



Although editing that was useless sense it is still in your quote :dizzy2:


Beroiut edit that out please

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hm, I thought I stated in my first post that I wanted a discussion on a more higher ideological level, not taxes up or down and things like that... Surely lowered/raised taxes can't be paradise. And things like: criminals should be punished and not mentioning how crime is to be reduced makes it seem like you think crime is good as long as it's punished. How would crime be avoided, and which crimes are bad and why? Punishing criminals just for the sake of punishing them seems more like an act to suffocate your own fear. The punishing must have an effect on reducing future crime, but death penalty doesn't do that, as statistics have shown. Furthermore, if society structure changes all the time, those who are driven mad are always different and therefore there'll be no change in the genetical composition of mankind if they're sentenced to death, so there'll always be people who aren't adapted to society. Now if we are to choose a society that we can justify death penalty in, it has to be constant, and a society that all can accept. The only society which could ever hope to fulfill the second requirement, is the pre-civilization society IMO.

And those who mentioned non-tolerance against other beliefs and ideologies, how are you going to avoid them from then seeing you as a threat and wanting to kill you? If you seriously are non-tolerant to beliefs and ideologies that don't hurt you and thus aren't threats to you, then they'll rightly see you as a threat and want to kill you, and probably will do it too if only they get a stronger military. The military strength of nations and groups tends to shift very often with the current society structure, so in order for that view to work, you must have systems of making sure all enemy militaries are kept weak, a job that's impossible and can hardly be any more effective than the Versailles treaty was at keeping Germany disarmed in the 30ies. As I see it, non-tolerance can only work if it's total and involves extermination of all competitors, but that's nearly impossible and even if it was impossible, would that be desirable? A group that can kill all outside groups just like that might then, when finished, see differences within the group and start killing each others. There are only two options: total non-tolerance or total tolerance, all other things will result in conflicts and casualties for your own group.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Perfect society? Not possible.

There's no way it could ever happen without making slaves out of everyone, and that would hardly be perfect. As long as we have any freedoms there will always be problems- that's just the way it is. I can't even conceive of a "perfect society".

Sorry to crap all over your thread. ~D

No problem, but I'd like to know how you motivate that statement. Why would all people need to become slaves for society to work, and why does freedom lead to problems?

[ScionTheWorm]

1.) Castrating sexual predators (I mean it, best punishment).
2.) State economically rewarding "good ways of running business", for instance rewarding environment friendly industries before the ones letting too much crap out in to the atmosphere.
3.) Religion: freedom, but no religion sent on national television (we have some fanatics on tv here in norway each day) or preferred by the state. Old-days missionaries should be illegal.
4.) Multi-culture societies should get rid of their gettos. I would allow serious actions to do something about the really isolated groups.
5.) Research focused on important things for the people of the state
6.) High taxes are required to have free healthcare and that stuff, but get rid of everything that's unfair, and tone down the bureaucracy

And a 4 hour workingday I don't think would do any good. In fact that would make the whole population rather lazy. Would rather trade it with longer vacations

[BDC]

Leadership by a benevolent dictatorship.

[ScionTheWorm]

yes dictatorship. leader not allowed to have family or possesions, only doing what benefits the state.

[BDC]

yes dictatorship. leader not allowed to have family or possesions, only doing what benefits the state.
Or even better, let them be an ai ala Deux Ex. Completely uncorruptable, completely benevolent.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yeah, but if you entered that secret room at Everett's house (in Deus Ex) you got an interesting discussion with that AI. Remember, it takes a human with his values to make the AI, then the AI will behave according to the opinions of it's creator...

Anyway, I don't think either democracy or dictatorship is what I want. I think no leadership and freedom to do what you want pretty much, but you'll be punished if you are a threat and you'll know beforehand what punishment everything gives, and what acts are threats. I think the leader should give very few orders, and a single leader for all aspects seems bad imo. I think the best hunter leader should lead hunt for food, but power to command in a situation should not lead to higher sexual status so that people will want power because it gives them partners. And I doubt any single person can command more than around 500 persons, so nobody should have power over any bigger group than that. It's democracy in the sense that you're allowed to do whatever you want most of the time, but dictatorship in that you had better obey in the cases where obedience is benefitial, i.e. during hunt. In a calmer situation you should have the right to question the orders, of course.

Democracy as today has weaknesses in that these people get to have a part in decisions: 1. stupid, 2. easy to manipulate through propaganda, 3. people who vote simply in order to sabotage certain things, 4. the democracy is not direct, you vote for who should be your dictator for the coming few years. The weaknesses of dictatorship is corruption, abuse of power and the ability of the person with power to use power in areas where no commanding or leadership is needed, thus depriving people of freedom more or less completely. Also, the fact that power gives status is harmful in the dictatorship regime, because a bad dictator won't resign because he wants the status.

If power is separated from sexual rank status again, power will not be desirable in the same way. If power has no sexual rank status, a leader who turns out to be bad will see no loss in prestige when resigning if it's needed. If the sole purpose of the leadership is because the leader is the best commander in situations when commanding is needed for optimal results, then leadership can't be a bad thing. In most other cases, it is. Actually, I think this is the clue - separate power from sexual rank status.

[ScionTheWorm]

the problem with democracy in our time is, like you say, that people are stupid, egoistic, manipulated easily and making bad judgements (even me ~D )

say taking a number of newborn babies making them candidates. like princes, but educated to rule the state, being rational. The best candidate would be the ruler when he'd grow up. pretty science fiction I guess, but if he/she is very intelligent and non-egoistic, he would make good decisions for the state.

or another type of leadership would be a math formula. every decision made by this formula, taking welfare of the people as a priority, and the future of the economics etc. that would be some kind of computer.

[Lazul]

1. The Government has complete control, however, it's job is to do what is best for the people and for the advancement of humanity.
2. No welfare or other such free rides through life. It only hurts the recipiant and hurts the taxpayers even more.
3. The Church and the Government are one and the same, they shall cooperate on all issues and any outlaw of religion is tyrrany.
4. Criminals=dead.
5. Latin is a national langauge.
6. Illegal immigrants have no rights. Whatsoever.
7. All Citizens shall own a firearm, and citizen miltias shall make up for the national guard.
8. Military society: The military shall take it's rightful place as the most honorable and noble profession.
9. Any children with below-average IQs shall be taken out of school and put in factories.
10. Any laws restricting the econemy and such shall be abolished immediatly, except for one outlawing outsourcing. Other than that, the Government shall take a laizze faire stance on econemy. Capitalism.
11. Reintroduction of the Estate System and Aristocracy.
12. The beleif that while all men are born equal, some become greater than others through deeds and virtues.


...and every so ten years there is an uprising more or less successful and millions die over and over again couse you need total control and stability within every sector to be happy. hence we can now see that you have no respect for; life in general.

Think man, if there were say; 5 differnt huge cultures in the world, using your model, there would in the end be five huge nation-states with enourmus military resources. And in the end there will be one shoot fired or one nation to great for the others that it starts to expand... and we are f'ed.

even tho you say Church and State shall be one in #3 you have descrived a society that is very un-religius and hatefilled that uses its weakest people in facotires as more or less a second class race of men. So I take your not a Christian, Muslim, Jew... absolutley not a Bhuddist...but Ocult-Satanist? I could believe that. Or maybe you are a "Germanian- Nazi- Mysticist" maybe?

[Meneldil]

Legio, what do you call 'a group' ? If a group = a country, I agree with you. However, if by group, you mean 'ethnical/religious/political group living within the same country', I'd say there should be no group in a perfect society.


No Religion; that's the hard part. The rest would be gravy

I disagree. I'm not a big fan of religion, but there are different kind of religious people. To name a few people from this board, there's a difference between Don Corleon's religion and Navarros' religion. Now, guess which one is IMO better for a society ~;)

Of course, if religion can be replaced by a rationnal feeling, I wouldn't mind either.

Quite frankly, I think a perfect society would be an utopical socialist society. That's mainly what Marx intended to do. Now we all know how socialism (or rather communist) states turned out.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

...and every so ten years there is an uprising more or less successful and millions die over and over again couse you need total control and stability within every sector to be happy. hence we can now see that you have no respect for; life in general.

Think man, if there were say; 5 differnt huge cultures in the world, using your model, there would in the end be five huge nation-states with enourmus military resources. And in the end there will be one shoot fired or one nation to great for the others that it starts to expand... and we are f'ed.

even tho you say Church and State shall be one in #3 you have descrived a society that is very un-religius and hatefilled that uses its weakest people in facotires as more or less a second class race of men. So I take your not a Christian, Muslim, Jew... absolutley not a Bhuddist...but Ocult-Satanist? I could believe that. Or maybe you are a "Germanian- Nazi- Mysticist" maybe?

Nope, I'm a Catholic with a bit of Nordic-mysticist beleifs (I'm my own thing, you know?).

Besides, many of these "weakest people" can only serve the nation best in lowly labor positions.

[Lazul]

Nope, I'm a Catholic with a bit of Nordic-mysticist beleifs (I'm my own thing, you know?).

Besides, many of these "weakest people" can only serve the nation best in lowly labor positions.

And you believe theese "weak" people simply accepts to be a second rate race of humanity? The only logical thing to expect is an uprising once the system is in force, and then more money as to be put in to policing theese "laber-people"... in the end you will have to divide society into "normals" and "slaves/working people".

I would like to hear more tho, how you manage to combine nordic-germanian mysticism with Christianity!?

[Byzantine Prince]

This thread is a semantic contradiction. There can't be a perfect society, because everyone in the world has a different standard for perfection.

But enjoy it while it's pointless. ~D

[Lazul]

to quote myself:

"When Uniforms are obsolete, thats when Utopia is reached".... ~:handball:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Legio, what do you call 'a group' ? If a group = a country, I agree with you. However, if by group, you mean 'ethnical/religious/political group living within the same country', I'd say there should be no group in a perfect society.


For me, group in this case is just a group of people who live together, nothing else said. It could be the same as a nation.

[Rodion Romanovich]

This thread is a semantic contradiction. There can't be a perfect society, because everyone in the world has a different standard for perfection.

But enjoy it while it's pointless. ~D

It depends what level you discuss on. If we stick to bigger questions most people have pretty much the same opinion. It's mostly the detail questions, and how to achieve a certain goal rather than choosing the goal, where people disagree.

[Colovion]

where people celebrate eachother's differences, not merely tolerate them

where people go out of their way to make sure their neighbors and relatives are comfortable, societal hospitality

[Del Arroyo]

Free love is what happens between your girlfriend and other guys when one of you isn't around for a while.

There is no such thing as a perfect society. We come into this world enmeshed in a system with certain pre-existing conditions, and we make the best of them (or not).

DA

[Soulforged]

There is no such thing as a perfect society. We come into this world enmeshed in a system with certain pre-existing conditions, and we make the best of them (or not).

DA But the point is trying to change it. That was proposed by communism and by anarchism (I disrespect so much right socialism that I'll not mention it here). Was that a perfect society? No but the ideals were the best we could hope, at least IMO.

[Papewaio]

"When Uniforms are obsolete, thats when Utopia is reached".... ~:handball:

I'm sure someone with a uniform fetish will disagree... ~;) ~D

[Lazul]

I'm sure someone with a uniform fetish will disagree... ~;) ~D

hahaha, well you get my point :bow:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually we've done a very bad job of creating a good society. One of the mistakes we keep making, in both communism, capitalism, christianism etc. is that people will be good by nature and show solidarity no matter what. We always seem to forget that people will only act good if it's most benefitial to be good, and that it's apparent that being good is most benefitial. As long as we fail to improve at least that part, then we're doomed to plenty of violence, murder, wars and so on. There's also people that always says people will act evil no matter what. I think both are wrong. We'll act according to the situation, and if we choose to create the correct situations, we'll create the correct, non-evil, actions.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Free love is what happens between your girlfriend and other guys when one of you isn't around for a while.

There is no such thing as a perfect society. We come into this world enmeshed in a system with certain pre-existing conditions, and we make the best of them (or not).

DA

Non-free love is when someone unworthy snatches your true love and binds her so she can never be free from him.

And my system says you'll never be away, so there's nothing to worry about. The only thing marriage has done is cause people to feel so much pressure to be faithful that they end up cheating on each others, even when they didn't truly want to. And it punishes and prevents people who want say two or three partners from doing what they want.

Only those who have or are going to or think they'll be able to bind someone they aren't worthy of to them by marriage can be against free love in itself. There are however other reasons for disliking free love while living in a society like the current one, but they're mostly logistical such as having planned your life around a certain family composition, having moved together etc. and suddenly having to change habits.

[Franconicus]

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix,
Thank you for this thread. Hope to see some fantastic utopian scenarios.
However I am shocked about the vision of some people ~:confused: Sounds like hell to me. Kaiser, do you really work in a factory?

If I could change the world like I want it to be it would look pretty much as the 'News from Nowhere' of William Morris. :book: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/MorNews.html

[Del Arroyo]

Non-free love is when someone unworthy snatches your true love and binds her so she can never be free from him.

And my system says you'll never be away, so there's nothing to worry about. The only thing marriage has done is cause people to feel so much pressure to be faithful that they end up cheating on each others, even when they didn't truly want to. And it punishes and prevents people who want say two or three partners from doing what they want.

Only those who have or are going to or think they'll be able to bind someone they aren't worthy of to them by marriage can be against free love in itself. There are however other reasons for disliking free love while living in a society like the current one, but they're mostly logistical such as having planned your life around a certain family composition, having moved together etc. and suddenly having to change habits.

The reason so many women nowadays are screwing guys that aren't worthy of them is because so many of those women are sluts. They are trained to put their base sexual impulses first, and end up jumping in bed with alot of guys that they believe will satisfy them immediately, but whom they don't trust or respect enough to ever really stay with.

One of the main problems with our society today is that we've been teaching women that they must, basically, act more like men-- not only in the workplace, but also sexually-- and brainwashing men to think this is the way things should be. So you get the emasculated men acting like a bunch of macho jerk-offs to compensate, the complete disposal of female "virtue" as an oppressive ideal of the "patriarchy", and a whole slew of disfunctional social patterns which we see being played out today.

DA

[Rodion Romanovich]

The reason so many women nowadays are screwing guys that aren't worthy of them is because so many of those women are sluts. They are trained to put their base sexual impulses first, and end up jumping in bed with alot of guys that they believe will satisfy them immediately, but whom they don't trust or respect enough to ever really stay with.

One of the main problems with our society today is that we've been teaching women that they must, basically, act more like men-- not only in the workplace, but also sexually-- and brainwashing men to think this is the way things should be. So you get the emasculated men acting like a bunch of macho jerk-offs to compensate, the complete disposal of female "virtue" as an oppressive ideal of the "patriarchy", and a whole slew of disfunctional social patterns which we see being played out today.

DA

I think sluttyness has also been created by accidental evolution in our civilization. With all forced diplomatic marriages, women who didn't protest against sex with their forced husbands didn't get many children and their genes died. Only the sluts who could accept sex with anyone survived genetically. That's why sluttyness is common. Of course culture and modern day brainwashing also plays a major part, but it's helped a lot by this accidental non-deliberate evolution.

Also, when population groups are too large and becomes mixed without control, it's more benefitial to have sex with as many as possible, and not necessary that as many as possible reproduce in order to keep the genetical variety. That's another reason why sluttyness among both men and women has been favored in civilization. Perhaps you now understand some of the reasons why I dislike civilization compared to pre-civilization society. Again, propaganda and ideals of the time also matter, but they can be fought in the long term. Genetical changes caused by stupidity and failure to predict the results of our actions can not.

A final word on girls screwing unworthy, can also be derived from accidental evolution created by civilization. In wars, you send the strongest and most intelligent to death or at least isolation from their wives during a long period. The wives that abandon their loves during that period, and ends up screwing the unworthy, cowardly, shrewd or powerful who in one way or another avoided military service, survive genetically better than those who are faithful. The problem is that the men still like these types of women, but those types of women have been naturally selected to not like the worthy men back.

[Del Arroyo]

With all forced diplomatic marriages, women who didn't protest against sex with their forced husbands died. Only the sluts who could accept sex with anyone survived.

:inquisitive:

Ummmm... how did they die?

DA

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ok, careless choice of words ~:). I meant they did of course get fewer or no children, and thus their genes died in the long term. Edited now...

[Del Arroyo]

I dunno, Legion, I've heard of some pretty prolific monogamous (or at least purportedly monogamous) couples... like the Boones with 16 or 17.

Seeing as women are only capable of really having about 1 child per year, or 1 child every 2-3 years if they breastfeed, I don't see how faithfulness under normal circumstances would hurt a woman's chances of reproducing.

And as far as the war hypothesis-- while this may have some validity in modern civilization, it has certainly not been true throughout the vast majority of human history. In WW1 and WW2 men used condoms and girls got abortions... but historically I would imagine that conquering armies would result in quite a few pregnancies.

Also I think the war hypothesis depends alot on whether the worthy go out and get killed in statistically significant numbers, or if they're just away for a while, come back, and get new wives. Wars in which upwards of, say 25 or 30% of the males in a particular generation were wiped out would be more likely to have significant long-term consequences.

I do think there is some good evidence from evolutionary biology to suggest that biologically we are or at least were pretty promiscuous creatures-- for instance, I can't remember but either 25% or 75% of our sperm are actually just "killer" sperm whose only role is to seek out rival sperm and destroy it. Of course any conclusions drawn from such evidence are speculative at this point.

DA

P.S.: As far as the war hypothesis relating to evolution of sluttyness in women, well I would imagine that a tendency to stray when a mate is gone away for a year or more simply makes good evolutionary sense.

But what about when he's gone for one or two months?? Or, even more common, when the girl takes a trip, say one or two weeks??

[Rodion Romanovich]

I do think there is some good evidence from evolutionary biology to suggest that biologically we are or at least were pretty promiscuous creatures-- for instance, I can't remember but either 25% or 75% of our sperm are actually just "killer" sperm whose only role is to seek out rival sperm and destroy it. Of course any conclusions drawn from such evidence are speculative at this point.


Yes, it might be true, but a species whose reproduction is too heavily determined by who has the strongest killer sperm isn't very survival strong in the long term. A strong organism is of course to some extent needed, as well as a good partner matching is. But still, many of the reproduction system specific factors play an important role. For example a gene may code an really useful protein, but simply the sequence of DNA bases alone makes it easy to mutate, and compensates for that, making the individual unable to survive genetically, as good as other individuals, in the long term.



P.S.: As far as the war hypothesis relating to evolution of sluttyness in women, well I would imagine that a tendency to stray when a mate is gone away for a year or more simply makes good evolutionary sense.

But what about when he's gone for one or two months?? Or, even more common, when the girl takes a trip, say one or two weeks??

The interesting thing here is that if you've had the scenario of men being away for several years, and you've that way caused a change of genetical levels of sluttyness in the population, the effect may be sluttyness even if the man is away for two months. Is hard to know if a sluttiness selection works the way that it's either total faithfullness or total sluttyness, or if it's a soft scale etc., i.e. if slutiness when favored results in girls that are slutty even if it's just a week or a month. To answer that specifical question, it's necessary to check for individual genes that could control sluttyness. Such a study would of course be unethical... An explanation for cheating during a two week trip could also be that even if the person is faithful, seeing new persons increases the chance of meeting someone they'd prefer to be completely faithful to.

But in any case, we weren't hundred percent faithful before civilization either. We were probably more faithful at heart (genetically). The most important thing though is that those who had a life with not one but many partners didn't promise each of their partners that they'd be faithful and have noone else. I think the worst part of cheating is that you break such a promise, that you completely let someone down like that. The second worst part of it is probably if the partner that cheated chose to cheat with someone unworthy. The sexual part of cheating isn't really that difficult to accept, I think. So what civilization does in this aspect is that they make those who have more than one partner make promises they can't keep, and has made it harder for us to keep these promises.

Finally, I'd like to note that this post is in no way meant to be hateful or discriminating. Men also have similar things, but since the discussion was about this particular subject I don't mention it here. Also, we can never know how much this undesired evolution has affected mankind. Sluttiness might be hundred percent culture, and might be hundred percent accidental human-induced evolution. All we can say for sure is that the society structure promotes this evolutionary change, and that is really all we need to know.