Yes, you are right when we are still in the hydrocarbon macro-industrial technology, but I was thinking of when we have A.I. powered molecular fabricating technology, with a nearly perfect closed loop recycling economy powered almost exclusively by solar, maybe fusion, or even zero-point energy technology.

To be honest, if the world's population would level off at only 8 or 9 billion forever, that would be even better.

Quality of life is important. I remember going up to a camp ground near Los Angeles and seeing cars parked a mile from the campground because of over crowding. That made the expirience less pleasurable because of the crowding.

It would be possible to have a world in which almost everyone lived like today's million aires and have no negative impact on the environment, but if every wilderness area were crowded with people trampling over everything, and everytime you wanted to go to the beach you would have to compete for a place to sit, than that reduces the quality of life. That is my argument against the idea that if the world could support 100 or 1000 times the population that it can now, that it would be just o.k. if the population continued to expand.

The good news is that population growth is slowing, and some of the people in the future will migrate to the local space in the solar system and build dwellings out of the materials in the astroid belt.

A good deal of the slowing in population growth actually is because women can use birth control, and are having sex for recreation as opposed to reproduction.

By the way, isn't it a wounderful thing that in societies that are having much more recreational sex, the birth rate is plummitting? The best of all possible worlds, if you ask me.

 

aldersondrive2007:

A good deal of the slowing in population growth actually is because women can use birth control, and are having sex for recreation as opposed to reproduction.

By the way, isn't it a wounderful thing that in societies that are having much more recreational sex, the birth rate is plummitting? The best of all possible worlds, if you ask me.

 

If people only had sex for reproduction and not for recreation, we could virtually eliminate sexual abuse as a problem.  

As for population and immortality, the science of immortality may become perfected before sustainability is reached.  Only a society built around zero impact growth can sustain. How many molicules can you own, for how long? Where can you own them? Who has the right to own more molicules than very poor people or the poorset person on earth?

If immortality is reached, the other science will eventually solve the other problems that occur.

We have material all alound us. It is how we use and reuse material that makes a difference.

If immortality is reached, how we use material and access rights to use material, how much, how often, ect. We need to work this out on a global level.

I think everyone can live like millionaires in a post human world. I think it can be done if it is worked out before immortality by the elimination of death as a natural process becomes reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm..  Did you mean that if we had sex only for reproduction? No fun in that. As far as sexual abuse that is usually based on a power paradigm that I classify as one of the great power pincers of human misery. If we changed our sexual mores from the old Victorian model to a more benevelent one, than most of those problems would dissapear.

Exactly. You've probably heard this before, but sexual abuse is about power, not sex. Its motivation is little different from non-sexual physical abuse. The acceptance of recreational sex probably decreases sex crimes.

EschewObfuscation:

Exactly. You've probably heard this before, but sexual abuse is about power, not sex. Its motivation is little different from non-sexual physical abuse. The acceptance of recreational sex probably decreases sex crimes.

A concrete definition of recreational sex is needed. What is recreational sex to you might be sexual abuse to the other partner. If people focused on fantastic relationships and used sex as a functional tool for creating new humans and not for recreational pleasure, the world would be a much better, safer place.

 

Afn:

EschewObfuscation:

Exactly. You've probably heard this before, but sexual abuse is about power, not sex. Its motivation is little different from non-sexual physical abuse. The acceptance of recreational sex probably decreases sex crimes.

A concrete definition of recreational sex is needed. What is recreational sex to you might be sexual abuse to the other partner.

No duh. Non-consensual things tend to be bad. How's this definition: mutually pleasurable and desired sex without intent to reproduce.

If people focused on fantastic relationships and used sex as a functional tool for creating new humans and not for recreational pleasure, the world would be a much better, safer place.

Really? Got any logic to back that up? I think the easier it is for people to release their sex drive through an ethical, socially accepted means, the less likely they are to commit abuse.

Will I ever have a kid, I don't know maybe. Its not that I don't want kids it is that I don't think I would that good of a father, but if I prove to be someone who take care of a kid and make that kid happy, then yeah I would have a kid.

Now from what I read I can see the needs to have kids, because most of us live in a majority rule world, were who ever gets the most votes wins. But you should not have kids because of this, like some many here have said. These are children we are talking about, young people, not a product or tool to use in our own agendas. To do such a thing would not only lose the entire purpose of having a child, but also make you less of a person in doing so. You are suppose to do everything that you possibly can do to make your child happy and safe and let them live their own lives, and not for your own purposes. Now I am sure no one on this site would use a child in such a way, but I still wanted to say this.

Now Afn "If people focused on fantastic relationships and used sex as a functional tool for creating new humans and not for recreational pleasure, the world would be a much better, safer place." do you honestly know what and believe what you are saying?

I am 17 and I know that this is not true. I am also Christian and know this is not true, and who are the main ones saying that having sex for reproductive purposes will lead to a better world? Every person I know (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Atheist, Wiccan, my age, a few years younger than me, and people very older than me) says this is not true. I have been to communities that used sex only for this purpose and where their primary goal was to connect with Jesus and mother Mary, and to also live a more simplistic life. While the children were happy (or at least I think they were happy, they did not act like regular children there age should act...but I could be wrong) and so were the adults (just like the kids, did not act normal), but I promise you I, nor probably you and probably everyone on this site, would want to live in such a way. Through this experience and the experiences I have had in regular life (not disconnected to the world) I can full hardly say this is not true.

Extended lifespans are going to cause problems until the population problem and lack of opportunity problem is solved for all 6 billion plus of us. If people focused on fantastic relationships and used sex as a functional tool for creating new humans and not for recreational pleasure in the context that when aging is solved, and we will be able to live forever with technology and once perfected sex will not be needed unless you want a child.

Perhaps I should clarify:

If people focused on fantastic relationships BEFORE marriage and used sex as a functional tool ONLY AFTER marriage, the world would be a safer place.

My point is it is not about the sex. I do not want to deprive people of premarital sex or alternative lifestyles. What I want is clear educational procedure to keep people happy and safe.

Not everyone can have or wants to have committed monogamous relationship. What  I think is needed is a clarification of sex and sexual process so that sexual abuse and other problems of human interaction are evolutionary by design and a obsolete problem, not the problem we currently have.

Afn:

Extended lifespans are going to cause problems until the population problem and lack of opportunity problem is solved for all 6 billion plus of us. If people focused on fantastic relationships and used sex as a functional tool for creating new humans and not for recreational pleasure in the context that when aging is solved, and we will be able to live forever with technology and once perfected sex will not be needed unless you want a child.

Perhaps I should clarify:

If people focused on fantastic relationships BEFORE marriage and used sex as a functional tool ONLY AFTER marriage, the world would be a safer place.

My point is it is not about the sex. I do not want to deprive people of premarital sex or alternative lifestyles. What I want is clear educational procedure to keep people happy and safe.

Not everyone can have or wants to have committed monogamous relationship. What  I think is needed is a clarification of sex and sexual process so that sexual abuse and other problems of human interaction are evolutionary by design and a obsolete problem, not the problem we currently have.

Ok I chould see that. Yeah social relationships are important and should be nurtured, of course a person should have the choice to choose (which you probably will agree). But there is not much you can do, nor I, other than getting into or making programs to help children find something to do (safely of course) or helping the less fortunate. But even then you would have to get people to come together and concentrate their efforts to do anything that would truly affect a sanifigant area.

Of course I guess you could bring back the old "it takes a neighborhood to raise a child" thing back from the 70s and apply it in the here and now. But again I don't know how you are really going to be able to do this in the times we live in now. You couldn't get one kid from my neighborhood to listen to one of my neighbors (of course that might be a good thing in my case seeing where I live), so I don't know how this could be applied to a grander scale.

So there really isn't anything one can do than raise up a child the right way (which can be defined any number of ways) and hope that others follow.

Your Friend

Neo

Edit:

Also who would be the ones to deifne what sex is and how it should be used? There are so many different interpertations of what sex is and how it should be used that it would be nigh impossible to make a firm defination. For example if we had the Catholic definiation as the foundation (which I hope will never happen) sex would be for reproductive needs only and only between "married" couples. Thats very different from my own interpertation that it should be between those who care for each other, married or not, and what to be with each other, for as long as that would be (hopefully long, but it doesn't always end that way.).

Now what I am saying is how people have very vast different interpertations and believes that they think is the right way. Now think about how many people would not have their opinions swayed to the believes of others. Because of what we are, having a firm defination on this one thing would be impossible.

Again the only way I can see having sex abuse and such to be reduced is through good parenting, or programs to have children have fun, and things like that, and then that would work to a certain degree. Some people are just perverted and want to take pleasure from the pains of others, which is quite pathetic. And it might stay here until we find a way to either a) have them be able to do this with out actually hurting a real person, or b) have it become increasingly hard to do this without getting caught and make them give up. Either way I guess could happen with the technology that will most likely be available in the next 30 years.

Kingneo:

 

 But again I don't know how you are really going to be able to do this in the times we live in now. You couldn't get one kid from my neighborhood to listen to one of my neighbors (of course that might be a good thing in my case seeing where I live), so I don't know how this could be applied to a grander scale.

 

Mass media.

 

Afn:

Mass media.

*Laughs* True. True. But when you think about it mass media can be a good thing, and a bad thing. It can work for you or it can go against you. Plus media now is more about entertainment than "enlightening" the people.

Your Friend

Neo

Your idea is one that people of lower sexual desire would think of, or one that individuals who have been abused or other problems.

This isn't acceptable nor is it logical to many of us.

Most of the most hidious abuse is found in the Catholic and also many fundamentalist religions in which normal human sexuality is repressed. Cultures like the ones that the Victorians couldn't convert fast enough had very loose sexual mores and much less abuse than we have seen.

Your idea is fine for men and women who don't really desire sex, and I have no problem with that. But the idea that this would make for a happier world is totally out of touch with reality.

I find the happiest people I have ever met in the sex positive community, in which one lady I have met beamed with pride as she finally had sex with over 22 men at a party. Her and her husband have been involved in the sex positive community for 15 or more years and have been married for 25. I know of many people who enjoy the lifestyle and are relaxed and happy.

So, based on MY observation, I suppose I can say more people would be happier and the world more peaceful if there were sexually liberated open parties in every city on Earth. All, or course, with free condoms, as is the case here in the city I live.

aldersondrive2007:

I find the happiest people I have ever met in the sex positive community, in which one lady I have met beamed with pride as she finally had sex with over 22 men at a party.

Call me prude, but I make it a point to never have sex with more than ten people a night.

Seriously, I can't even imagine the appeal here.  All I can think is that it's not so much a sign of a healthy sexual appetite but more evidence of severe sexual issues.

Perhaps that would be best suited for another thread though.

Actually you are right. The more conservative religious communties are usually the ones with the greater child abuse percentage. This is based on personal experience between people I know and not based on pure bias.

Now I will agree that sex is good, and that a positive view on sex usually allows for less child abuse, there is a line that you go to that lets you go too far. That line as I see it is having sex just for the sake of having sex without any feels for your partner. Now you may see this as rediculious probably saying "why would a person do something like that without even knowing a little about the person?" I have seen it happen, and have also seen lives ruin because of it.

While having sex with multiple partners is good (its very and I do mean very good personal experience) that may not be always a wise decision. The most girls I have had sex with in the same day was 3, but where I am from that is risky. With STDs, especially HIV and AIDS, having sex with that many people is more risky than it was before, and then not knowing the people you did, might just make it more complicated.

Kingneo:

Actually you are right. The more conservative religious communties are usually the ones with the greater child abuse percentage. This is based on personal experience between people I know and not based on pure bias.

Church sexual abuse is a serious problem including incest in religous communities.

Kingneo:

Now I will agree that sex is good, and that a positive view on sex usually allows for less child abuse,

We need comprehensive education to stop child abuse, mainstream sexual abuse education and completely honest communications.

Kingneo:

While having sex with multiple partners is good

 

From a medical standpoint it is dangerous with hiv/std's. I may be in a minority, but I have a medically valid reason that group sex is not a good idea.

Kingneo:

I have seen it happen, and have also seen lives ruin because of it.

 

We need a very clear sexual language and respect for those who wish to keep it clean.

Kingneo:

The most girls I have had sex with in the same day was 3, but where I am from that is risky. With STDs, especially HIV and AIDS, having sex with that many people is more risky than it was before, and then not knowing the people you did, might just make it more complicated.

My grandparents were monogamus, and my parents were also.

It is hard to find a partner like that today. There are valid reasons to keep sex between just two people. It is not for everyone. Divorce has helped families and people split to find better relationships.

I guess you need to find a partner who wants to live with a person who has had sex with 30 people in one night, or 3 in a day. Some people can make it work, but I believe that trust is violated in such arrangements unless it works for them.

My mom should have divorced my dad, but never did. I am not saying that monogamus relationships are better, I think they have functional utillity versus multiple partners and multiple partners over time.