|
| Thread: Love, Sex and Evolved Monkeys |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 30, 2009 08:53 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:55, 30 Apr 2009.
|
Love, Sex and Evolved Monkeys
The OSM needs some new life breathed into it. We need something interesting to talk about. Well, here's my attempt at creating a new serious topic. I want to ask the question:
What is more important to humanity, love or sex?
Yes, I realize that's a broad question. By "more important", I don't necessarily mean "more necessary for survival". To get your mental juices flowing, here are some facets to consider. Obviously, don’t feel compelled to read it all to share an opinion.
Biological: What is more important to our biological function: love or sex?
Answering sex here might seem obvious. After all, with no sexual reproduction, there'd be no future humans! However, I want to highlight that the question asks about the effects of love/sex on humanity, not on humans. And no, those terms aren't necessarily synonymous. The latter is a general term that refers to individual human organisms. The latter encompasses human organisms as a collective entity, and everything that defines us as a collective species.
It could be argued that, biologically speaking, sex is not a distinguishing feature of humanity, and therefore its importance to human biology is no greater than it is to other animal species. On the other hand, love is at least arguably a characteristic unique to humanity. Love is also not biologically irrelevant; love can have dramatic effects on (chemical) physiology – but to what end? Does love exist only for the benefit of sex, or does it have other biological uses as well?
Sociological: What is more important to the structure of human society: love or sex?
Clearly the human capacity for love is a product of evolution, and therefore it must be biologically important. However, we can consider that question in a broader, sociological context. A fundamental question asked by evolutionary biologists might be: what role does love play in competition? I.e., why did love evolve? Is it merely as a mediator for sexual competition and child-rearing? Or perhaps it evolved to buttress more sophisticated elements of human society? If society evolved because human capacity for survival is enhanced when humans live in collective groups rather than individuals, then perhaps love was a necessary ingredient in our very survival as a species. It’s a tie that binds.
The impact of sex on the structure of society is quite clear. It is no coincidence that the very concept of marriage (and I don't mean in the religious sense here - I mean, the physical union, the basic family unit) has traditionally been between one man and one woman, and more marriages throughout history have been based upon sex (i.e., the need to procreate) than love. Much of what drives our economy, our system of laws, and our religions are all related to the fundamental unit of male/female pairs, which themselves are a product of the fact that humans reproduce sexually. Consider, if you don't believe this, how our society might be fundamentally changed if humans reproduced asexually (if humans had no genders). It's quite a mind-bending thought exercise (a related question is: if humans reproduced asexually, would love still have evolved?). So, is sex of prime importance to the structure of society?
Not so fast. Love holds a marriage together long after sex has danced its dance. Love certainly has a bigger impact on the family, as sex really only forms a bond between two of its members. Sex has little to do with friendship, and these are clearly almost as important to the structure of human society as ties of a sexual nature: sex is not the only glue that binds humans together and so sex was maybe not essential to (or, at least, not the only ingredient in) the evolution of human collectives. Of the typical human lifespan, only a fraction of it is spent sexually active. Unlike many animal species, which die out soon after offspring are born, humans now often live long past child-bearing age. Love is certainly more important for the elderly, for example, than sex. Many of the world's most influential people are beyond child-bearing age - and if these people guide the things on which society functions (e.g., government; religion; education; the economy) then perhaps love is a more important influence on society than sex.
Religious: What is more important to shaping religious beliefs: love or sex?
This is certainly an interesting question, but I must first provide a backdrop describing my take on the role of religion.
Religion was a necessary product of human (societal) evolution. Assume for a moment that sex is the biological force that keeps the population growing, and love is the societal force that ensures that sex happens, encourages parents to stay together and increases the likelihood of progeny survival, and binds humans together into long-lasting collective networks (families and societies) that protect the species against outside pressures. In that case, both law and religion, it might be argued, evolved to ensure that humans understood the importance of morality and love – because humans don’t act only on instinct as other animals appear to do. In other words, while creating a society or collective brings with it certain benefits (among others, it makes it easier for the species in question to compete with other species), it also brings certain problems. Not least of these problems is competition within the species and the potential for deleterious human interactions that could threaten the integrity of the collective, and, hence, long-term survival. I mean, consider the "seven deadly sins", a cornerstone of Catholicism - envy, greed, gluttony, pride, wrath, lust, sloth. These are all things that can tear down human relationships and, if unchecked, lead to complete anarchy and dissolution of the collective. On the legal side, we punish individuals who threaten other individuals. Why? They interfere with the survival of the collective - and the species. [As another interesting thought experiment, ask yourself: is it possible that human intelligence evolved in order to create law and religion, to product the society from itself, thus ensuring survival?] What's the difference between law and religion? Well, for a large part of human history, there was none. God's word was law, and the church was his court. The role of science was also often incorporated into that entity as well. What’s the point? Legal frameworks evolved to ensure that we avoid the vices and embrace the virtues to enhance the strength of our collective network, and religion provided (among satisfying other roles) the nonhuman (and therefore unquestionable) authority figure, the mandate, the ultimate reward and the ultimate punishment to keep us all in line.
So, sex or love: what was more important to the shaping of religion? Traditional Christianity preaches the importance of love, and treats sex mostly as merely a means of procreation. The recreational side of sex is permitted implicitly (rarely explicitly) but only as a means of ensuring the survival of a marriage. Sex outside of marriage is typically viewed as taboo or even extremely dangerous and in many cases it is even a crime. Why? Well, promiscuity (lust) jeopardizes the integrity of society by breaking down the fundamental societal unit - the family - which, as I mention above, is a byproduct of our sexual biology. If religion developed as a means to protect society, then aside from the fundamental requirement of sexual reproduction, the dangers of recreational sex to society's internal bonds (not to mention disease, which is a whole separate but equally relevant issue) far outweighed any transient gains to be had from sex for the sake of pleasure. Whether that idea is justified or not is certainly up for debate - I think society has grown beyond that stagnant view and has come to believe that there are much worse things that threaten society's integrity than sex; plus we have come to understand that sex has many benefits, both physical and emotional, far beyond those gained merely by having children. Whatever you believe, it cannot be denied that sex and the dangers it allegedly posed to society, especially a scientifically ignorant one, played a major role in the development of religious thought and provided enough of a charter to get the ball rolling.*
On the other hand, religions sure to like to preach about the importance of love. Sticking with Christianity here, the whole New Testament is supposed to be based on love, and not just love for your spouse, but love for everyone. The central idea behind Christianity is that love erases sin, and Jesus is just one giant symbol of the ultimate, infinite love. Sin, of course, in theory is implicitly defined as anything that threatens the survival of society (sadly, it was eventually politicized to be anything that threatens the survival of the Church), and somewhat ironically, given its message of love, Christianity uses the ultimate human deterrent – fear – as a motive to ensure that the importance of love as a means of countering sin is understood by everyone. So, is love more central to Christianity, and religion in general? Love is clearly exalted by Christianity and sex in any incarnation is dirty (consider the requirement that women be virgins before marriage, or that sodomy has often been a crime punishable by death). And consider this: Jesus, the central figure of love in the New Testament, and completely without sin, was born without the carnal act. How symbolic is that?
Historical: What was a bigger influence on history: love or sex?
No doubt, sex and love have long been catalysts for history. I've already mentioned the role sex and love has played in the history of religion. Examples abound in secular history as well. Consider the dramatic role that love and sex have played in war and politics. Marriages have long been the currency with which alliances between nations and dynastic families have been formed – but these marriages were certainly more about sex than love. Consider these historical events that had love or sex at their centers: The Trojan War, fought over, if the historians of antiquity are to be believed, the lovely (but already married) Helen and a Trojan Prince falling in love with her; Jesus, who founded a religion on the message of love; Eleanor of Aquitaine and her ideals of courtly love in medieval France and England (also heavily influencing the arts and culture); Henry the 8th of England, who broke with the Catholic Church because it would not permit him to get a divorce; all the wars that followed; and etc. So which had a larger influence on the course of history – love or sex?
Economic: What influences business more: love or sex?
There’s the old adage that “sex sells”. It’s true. Whole industries revolve around it. Nevermind the obvious ones like prostitution and pornography, sex is also used heavily in product marketing and practically keeps every psychologist, talk show host and self-help book writer employed. It forms the foundation for several major commodity-based industries, including clothing/fashion, fragrances, and cosmetics, as well as plays major roles in the food (restaurants), beverage (bars/clubs), entertainment (Hollywood, the music industry, literature, sports), and of course medical industries. Love doesn’t have the power that sex does to sell objects; that is, sex is intimately tied to our desire for material things, and material things is what the economy is all about.
Of course, sex doesn’t have its own holiday, like love does, but that might be as much a product of morals (always the foil to market competition). And what would the greeting card industry be without Valentine’s day? Although, some might argue that V day is as much about sex as it is about love – it’s only about love after you marry. 
Artistic/Cultural: What has a larger influence on the arts and culture: love or sex?
Under the religion section, I discussed mostly the relationship of sex and love to the origins of religion in human society. It should be noted at even today, as in days past, sex drives religious thought and actions: homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, masturbation, anal/oral sex, proscriptions against birth control, priestly celibacy, incest and pedophilia – the Church has been obsessed with sex. The code of morals adopted by most of Western Society is fundamentally concerned with sex and its connection with sin. ** For instance, is it not strange that we can show a man getting his throat slashed apart on public television but if we show a single breast, people all over the country start talking about “moral decline”? We can make a movie like Hostel with people getting their eyes burned out and being tortured in the most bizarre ways, and it’s deemed appropriate for teenagers by the MPAA, but if we show a single erect penis, it’s rated NC-17. We have no problem sending thousands of men to their deaths in war or executing criminals with highly toxic chemicals, but we have moral qualms over two men expressing their love by getting married. Gambling, smoking and drinking are legal, but prostitution is not. The notion that sex is bad is one that permeates the very deepest levels of our culture, and it has for a long time. It began with religion, but nevertheless, even as people turn from worshipping a higher power, sex as sin continues to shape our culture and our approach to art and entertainment.
Sex is the quintessential guilty pleasure. It’s completely ingrained in Western culture as a bad thing, but we can’t get enough of it, as evidenced by its ubiquitous appearance in the arts and entertainment. Ancient Greek mythology was crammed full of it – what more can you say about a culture that had a hero (Heracles) that ravaged dozens of virgins in a single evening? (Although, to the Greeks sex was not the taboo subject it is to modern Western society.) The Church suppressed overt displays of sex in public life for quite some time, but once Western Europe emerged from the yoke of rigid Catholicism and the Renaissance began, sex in the arts flourished. Note that we see the explosion of cultural sex during this time not only in paintings, but also in epidemiology: wide-spread syphilis epidemics occurred simultaneous to the artistic revolutions of the 16th and 17th centuries. Whereas Western art before was constrained to paintings of holy figures with halos over their heads, now we had reinventions of lascivious scenes from the antiquities, often featuring hordes of [gasp] nudes. It is undeniable that sex plays a major role in modern art, as well – movies, music, literature: sex features heavily in all of them.
But what about love? Well, it figures heavily into arts and culture as well. Although most men would be glad if they would probably just disappear off the face of the earth, how many Romantic Comedies are produced each year? How many have you been forced to sit through? And what would the music industry be without the sappy love song? Love stories have been around a long time, and much of the old ideas of chivalry, inspired by the likes of Chaucer, revolved around courtly love. They still influence our notions of proper behavior even today. You could argue that many of the finest works of literature ever produced were inspired predominantly by love, not sex – consider, as example, Romeo and Juliet (hell, probably at least half of everything Shakespeare wrote), Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, many of the Arthurian Legends such as Le Morte d’Arthur, Dracula, works by Jane Austin, the Bronte sisters, and the list goes on. Movies? What about Braveheart, Cassablanca, Doctor Zhivago, Titanic – I mean, it’s endless. Granted, there are a lot of movies about sex, but my impression is that while many serious works of art feature sex, many more are about love.
So what do you think influences the arts more, sex or love?
Summary
Those are just some points to consider when trying to answer this question. Maybe you have others? Clearly sex and love are both quite important to humanity, and they play roles that are not always unrelated. It’s admittedly hard to consider the role of one without its relationship to the other. Nevertheless, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts: what is more important to humanity in your opinion – sex or love?
Footnotes:
*Two additional notes here. First, not all religions share this view of sex. I speak mostly of the Judeo-Christian philosophy. Also, not all societies combined law, science and metaphysics into religion. The Greeks had an advanced system of ethics, philosophy, science and law that was quite distinct from their religion. Second, while I religion was a necessary step in human evolution, it has outlived some of its usefulness. Human understanding of nature, and the maturity of our understanding ethics, law and morality, has allowed us fill in other, better ways many of the roles religion used to play.
** We can’t be completely naïve here and believe the Church is entirely altruistic, especially once it had matured into a major force of power in medieval Europe. The Church as a political entity had a motive to turn sex (and marriage) into a virtual commodity to be regulated. The major power structure of European elite families was played out through marriage alliances. Control the alliances, using fear and intimidation (you have the ultimate scare tactic, after all – hell and superstition) and you can lord over the whole continent. I think when being critical of the Church in this way, however, it’s important to distinguish the growth of the Church as a political entity and the original purpose of the religion behind it.
EDITS: Grammar/spelling
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 09:06 PM |
|
|
I see those as two separate things.
Love.. you love your parents? But you don't want to have sex with them.
Sex... If love was the prerequisite, there would be no rapes. And prostitutes.
It's like.. no, I won't bring the R and S words here. Anyway, two not much related terms.
For importance.. depends on what level. Stripping it to biological necessity, love serves no meaning, but judging by high culture, art and generally what humanity is about - sex doesn't have much strictly human importance.
+QP for Corribus would be nice ; Great read and a lot of effort put into that thread, btw.
And don't forget that various types of Christianity have various approach towards sex; Roman Catholic being the most "prudish"; protestantism more open and taboo-less.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 09:22 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:23, 30 Apr 2009.
|
Hi Doomforge:
Quote:
And don't forget that various types of Christianity have various approach towards sex; Roman Catholic being the most "prudish"; protestantism more open and taboo-less.
Of course you are correct. Obviously, one could write an entire book (and probably someone has) about the evolution of the way Christianity have viewed sex through its history. I didn't want the thread only to be about religion, so I had to generalize. And the general viewpoint of Christianity is that sex (outside of marriage, anyway) is somehow correlated with sin, and even within marriage it is typically not discussed openly.
I should also add to the biological section that sex, especially in today's society, plays a role way above what is necessary for procreation. Most people who are having sex don't do it to create children, so clearly it has some additional biological (not necessarily physical) function. Numerous studies have shown sex is good for this and that (heart health, mental health, whatever), but people aren't doing it for that reason, either.
Also, I wouldn't discount the connection between love and physiology, either. Studies have shown that people who are married (and presumably in love) live longer than those who aren't. See for example this link. Correlation of course doesn't imply causation necessarily; that relationship is likely complex but definitely worth exploring here.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 09:39 PM |
|
|
Well there was a thread about this, not going to get into details and looking through all the links/sources again, but I'll say few things.
"Sin" probably means something morally corrupt. Now, letting religion (and its morals) aside, I still find it 'bad' or 'sinful', but not because of religious arguments. In fact this applies to all pleasure.
I think that bodily/flesh pleasure (including sex) is what keeps humanity behind and never allow us to become greater in mental capacities as we are tied to charm -- it is like being someone who gets charmed by a spell, which shows a lack of willpower. And we will probably realize this only after we've made superior AIs or just we need MASS EXAMPLES of that.
Unfortunately, from experience, it is simply futile to talk about this, because no one wants to acknowledge it -- for comparison, it is like speaking with religious people holding dear to their values (but in this case, it is pleasure they're holding to).
Until, of course, we'll have a clear example "right in their faces" (I surely do not advocate that but it doesn't seem like it's otherwise possible). For that reason (showing humanity's flaws, not just pleasure, but also greed and tyranny) I'm a proponent of AI. In the latter case (greed and tyranny) they would probably treat us as the underdogs so we would get a taste our own methods. Also a good thing in my opinion. If that doesn't exterminate us and make us extinct, we may just as well learn something from it. (this is assuming the AIs are reasonable, and since I suspect they would be much more intelligent, I can at least give them that).
Quote:
I should also add to the biological section that sex, especially in today's society, plays a role way above what is necessary for procreation.
And, if it is true that it is only 'today's society' that brings more of that into the equation I can freely say we degenerated instead of evolving. Shouldn't be a surprise though -- we degenerated in many other areas as well, why should this be different?
Quote:
Numerous studies have shown sex is good for this and that (heart health, mental health, whatever), but people aren't doing it for that reason, either.
Yeah cause studies are never biased.
There are many studies who show the opposite (and I have linked a lot in the previous thread), plus any studies on humans is likely to be at fault at least in some points.
Generally speaking, you'll find probably much more people with bias in this area (as most likely they WANT those results -- someone who enjoys playing Counter-Strike won't actually publish and/or like the results that say it is unhealthy playing it, seriously), than those who are asexual, or simply not influenced by it, which can take it from a neutral ground. (asexual is not the same as anti-sexual, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm probably the latter though )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 09:50 PM |
|
|
Cor: Yeah, love and physiology are very tightly connected. I wouldn't call phenylalanine induced euphoria "love" though. For me, it's the "fascination" - teen fascination especially.
Death: Sex plays similar role in "modern times" as in "ancient times" - Greek, Roman civilizations were very, umm, sexual. So it's not a good thing to blame "modern" stuff - past wasn't much different.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Death: Sex plays similar role in "modern times" as in "ancient times" - Greek, Roman civilizations were very, umm, sexual. So it's not a good thing to blame "modern" stuff - past wasn't much different.
You may be right of course, I said "if" not as something definite. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 09:59 PM |
|
|
I'm curious Death. If you met your dream woman and she would want to have sex with you (NOT for procreation), would you refuse?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 10:06 PM |
|
|
Can we define "love" and "sex"?
There are (or have been in the last century) still clan-based societies who never had and still don't have something like marriage. People can switch their partners for the night, and children are basically cared for by the whole clan. There isn't something like monogamy and obviously there is no love in the sense that two people find themselves for life and so on.
The problm is, that we can define sex quite well, but love is something else. We know of course about motherly love, but that would be something instinctive.
So what is LOVE? Does it even exist? More, does it even exist outside the instincts of sex and motherly love? What is the difference between 2 friends and 2 brothers?
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Religious: What is more important to shaping religious beliefs: love or sex?
Ignorance and superstition.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
So Death, are you saying that in utopia there'd be no sex at all? That's an unusual viewpoint to have. Didn't that happen in Brave New World? 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm curious Death. If you met your dream woman and she would want to have sex with you (NOT for procreation), would you refuse?
If we arrive at that point it probably means I didn't explain myself enough until then (to her ofc). So it would probably be a good way to start then.
And explain my philosophy, if I haven't till then of course -- maybe she will change, maybe not. In the latter case, I realize not everyone can be perfect (to my ideals ofc), but it would simply be like refusing chocolate to my kid.
I certainly would not like to have a kid who would spit in my face if I didn't give him chocolate (that is, seriously ofc, because children do crazy things sometimes, so more tolerance). I would say good riddance.
There was this story I read once about some asexual girl who felt 'in the closet' (like most gays feel anyway) and etc... when she got a boyfriend who wasn't really asexual at that point.
And she told him once that she is asexual.
His reaction? "I don't care." (and he was serious, since that was a while ago and she knew that in the future he really meant it, when she wrote that)
That's true love instead of lust. That's what separates "evolved monkeys" from "monkeys".
That's what love is about. Period. Stop arguing otherwise (to those that do this was speaking in general)
Quote:
So Death, are you saying that in utopia there'd be no sex at all?
Think about this: if you could make an utopia where there wouldn't be any 'waste' (by this I mean, let's say, excrements), since it has been proven that sometimes getting rid of toxins/whatever it is called in english is actually 'pleasurable'.
And yes I do mean that, along with the whole idea of pleasure. In fact, this would easily be outlined by a simple "Matrix" exercise in an Utopia (I assume we would have such technology available by then). Those that only seek pleasure, should think about getting into such a virtual world forever.
Now there will be those that will choose half-pleasure and half-RL, but just think about it: isn't it better to have full-RL instead of half? (in this example, RL is the opposite of Virtual Pleasure World)
In other words, while an alcoholic that drinks once a week 'better' (in this respect) than one who drinks every day, the one who doesn't drink at all is even better.
In nature, pleasure has goals behind, because pleasure by itself is WASTEFUL, and nature seems to not choose that (that's why there's procreation, for example, associated with sex pleasure; or other things). How can you have waste in Utopia?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 04:01 AM |
|
|
Death:
Do people urinate in a utopia? Do they sweat? How can you have a society without producing waste?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 09:57 AM |
|
|
I repeat the question:
What IS love? Can we define it? Does it even exist? Or is it maybe a mix of some or many other feelings that is concluded to being something called "love".
Describe love, please.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 10:35 AM |
|
|
Sorry, JJ. Not good at defining. It's like trying to define the shape of a pear (credits to Sapkowski for that one).
Death: So would you dump her or not if she insisted on having sex? Or would you do as she wanted? Because I don't understand what you meant in your last post quite well.
I would dump an asexual girl.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 11:25 AM |
|
|
But that's the problem, isn't it?
How can you compare one thing with something that you can't even define? Nor prove its existence.
At this point, without a proper definition and without agreeing that there indeed IS something like love THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX it's like asking what has done more: sex or god (and when I say "god", I don't mean religion, but god as some superhuman entity).
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 12:16 PM |
|
|
Inability of providing a definition has nothing to do with being able to understanding something.
For me, it's the opposite that is the problem: People who can define everything, but in reality know **** about.
A good example would be a professor in Warsaw Tech being able to define everything about welding, but not knowing how to weld and not having any practical knowledge.
I would rather listen to a uneducated welder that can't summon enough words to define the process rather than him.
Besides, don't forget the language barrier. I can define it in Polish if you wish, but my English definition would be sloppy.
In other words, trying to find a definition here is a waste of time.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 12:36 PM |
|
|
|
Well, I can try do define god as well, but that doesn't answer the question or solve the problem, does it?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 12:48 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 12:50, 01 May 2009.
|
Death : are you saying pleasures are bad?
you want the humanity to become robots or what?
from what I understand, your vision of utopia would be a very bland world.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 03:10 PM |
|
|
Well then JJ why don't you try to define it for us.
I already provided some roles of love in my opening post. Why don't you start from there.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 03:51 PM |
|
|
Death:
The reason we don't go into a Matrix world is that something might go wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
