That I need to find a time machine and go back to the 1950's.

Fair game, I'll readdress your post.

Suppose you're terribly wrong here and that the need for sex and the satisfaction of that need is a more mature response than a person who has successfully repressed that need. Suppose your premise is utter nonsense, that elimination of or simply lacking sexual urge is unrelated entirely to virtue, morality, maturity or any superior power? That does seem to be your underlying unsupportable premise.

It strikes me that those who go without are either (1) misled religiously, (2) asexually constructed, or (3) socially incapable. Advocating chastity therefore arises because you either (1) wish to convert others to your religion, (2) are incapable of understanding sexuality due to your own asexuality, or (3) are trying to justify your own social limitations. — Hanover

What my readings in philosophy have taught me, meaning where I'm coming from, is that unfulfilled wants and desires cause suffering and anguish, which in turn lead to other undesirable emotions. I don't think there's much controversy over that.

As a constantly aspiring Stoic, I feel compelled to listen to my brethren Christians and not indulge in the pleasurable aspects of life. Please understand that I have nothing against people who indulge in pleasures and such matters. However, I hold people who can master their desires and wants in higher regard to those who do not... and the history of philosophy and religion would stand with me in that value of self-mastery.

I hope to have clarified where my position is coming from, rather from some neuroticism or other psychobabble some might assume.

Yes, because goodness is telling people they worship at the altar of pussy and using the word "fuck" a lot. No one is falling for your bullshit, Agustino. All you've done in this discussion is distract from a potentially sensible debate with Question and I'm not going to let you continue to get away with that. — Baden

Well, for the most part, I have found what Agustino has said to be pretty agreeable. I don't think he has said anything outrageous, like the sort you might see coming from a religious zealot about going to hell for masturbating, which is another matter altogether.

All in all, this has been a wholesome and good debate in my opinion.

Suppose I said "desire" and not "need," how'd you've had responded? — Hanover

I would have said that desire and need are two different things, as they are. This changes things considerably.

I'm going to take a Buddhist/Stoic turn here and argue that a person who has mastery over every one of their desires is, by all means, a Sage or has attained perfection in self-mastery. Nothing could bother such a person.

People who are slaves to their desires/urges/wants are weak and slavish. I don't think I need to dredge up the multitude of philosophical positions in favor of this interpretation.

Suppose you're terribly wrong here and that the need for sex and the satisfaction of that need is a more mature response than a person who has successfully repressed that need. Suppose your premise is utter nonsense, that elimination of or simply lacking sexual urge is unrelated entirely to virtue, morality, maturity or any superior power? That does seem to be your underlying unsupportable premise.

It strikes me that those who go without are either (1) misled religiously, (2) asexually constructed, or (3) socially incapable. Advocating chastity therefore arises because you either (1) wish to convert others to your religion, (2) are incapable of understanding sexuality due to your own asexuality, or (3) are trying to justify your own social limitations. — Hanover

Since when is sex a "need" instead of a "want"? Quite confused that people "need" it instead of wanting or desiring it.

Yes; but, no plane hit WTC7, and yet it fell symmetrically and on its own footprint. Steel framed concrete buildings don't just fall from office fires. It's just impossible unless the people who designed the buildings were high on LSD.

In other words, despite obvious efforts you've turned up precisely nothing on the benefits of long term celibacy in adult men, which is the focus of my discussion with Question. — Baden

Yes, but there are other benefits to celibacy and abstinence than those detailed in scientific papers. I will actually agree with you that on the whole of it, sex, has a bodily function that leads to better health. However, this is not the point I am attempting to make. Morally a person who can abstain from sex is a much more mature person than one who "needs" it.

People who can discriminate on "needs" and "wants" are, in my humble opinion, more mature and rational individuals.

Your sense of moral superiority is misplaced, or at the very least unjustified. — Michael

Not really. People who can abstain from sex and not be guided by desires are indeed in some sense "better" individuals than those who only act on instincts and desires. Ask any woman...

In addition, your second comment I've quoted speaks to something specific to U.S. masculinity (not that it doesn't apply elsewhere, but I prefer to limit myself to what I am at least familiar with). There are healthier forms of masculinity, of course, but the one projected upon us is one which is impossible to live up to, causes people to make poor choices and commitments, and in general is sex-centric in a way which is (so i believe, at least) unhealthy. — Moliere

This is very sad. Does anyone else see this as a great fall in the importance of wholesome and pure relationships? So many people are growing up with false expectations from their partner, and it only seems to feed of itself.

Children need age-appropriate information about human sexuality -- particularly their own sexuality. This does not mean, obviously, that 10 year olds should be instructed on the the fine points of sex on PornHub. As children grow, the age-appropriate and sexual-orientation appropriate information they need changes. Post-pubertal gay children need specific guidance, just as post-pubertal heterosexual children do. A lack of information isn't going to prevent adolescents from wanting to, and/or having sex. Without good information, they are sitting ducks for bad experiences.

Young adults can't make good decisions about education, careers, or health (lots of things) if they are totally unprepared to think about the topics. Same with sex. — Bitter Crank

That doesn't answer the question, though. The point is that sex shouldn't be treated as a competitive sport among men. It degrades the act and turns us into beasts acting on impulses and desires only.

And forgive the following bit of analysis, but this seems to me to be the nub of it. Ultimately what you want is prestige (i.e. social power) - your goal is to elevate your social self, which is natural enough, but you are frustrated by a society that considers sex as both normal and desirable. You then berate this society for not conforming to a version where your "self-mastery" would put you at the top. But why do you want to be at the top? Why do you want to be morally superior? This is where the neuroticism comes in in my view; prestige and social power are normally desired not simply as ends in themselves but, whether we are conscious of it or not, as furthering the biological end of sex. All other things being equal, those with prestige are more attractive to the opposite sex than those without it, and that's generally the underlying reason for seeking it. That's the way it works with our fellow apes and whether we like it or not that's the way it works at a basic level in human societies. Celibacy taken on as a badge of honour, so to speak, represents a short circuit of this process. — Baden

Again, "I'm not thinking about sex!"... I think the problem is that people feel compelled to not lag behind and there's quite a lot of peer pressure to join the club, so to speak. I'd argue from a different point in that sex should be treated as not something that ought be done; but, rather as it should be treated, as a private act that should take place in private and the security of a relationship.

People who practice celibacy have taken a shortcut to morality by not engaging in the quite pointless (vain) pursuit of prestige (social power) or show of superiority.

Let's not fall behind the sex race!

Let me ask you this then, apart from the 'health' reasons for having sex...

Why is it those people who do not have sex are viewed with prestige in the form of self-mastery? Isn't it kind of a testament to one's will and commitment that they can overcome this natural urge? Forgive me for romanticizing the matter; but, I find people who can overcome their desires as morally superior to those who can not or chose not to.

It is an obvious fact that we are sexual mammals, since that is how we reproduce -- it is in our nature. It is like telling a bird not to fly or a fish not to swim. — Emptyheady

People keep on repeating this as if it were a mantra. This is part of what I despise society at large for doing. "Hey, everyone else is doing it, then I should too!" Not?

It's getting to the point that we feel compelled to have sex just for the sake of it.

I didn't read his reply as being about sex. His issue, which I must profess to have some sympathy with, has to do with the cogency and possibility of Buddhism's soteriology. — Thorongil

Well, the topic of the thread is about sex... And, since the source of suffering, according to Buddhism, are desires, then sex must come up in or around the first place as a source of suffering. I only felt it appropriate to mention what Buddhism thinks about sex, along with pretty much every other religion.

I grew up in a vacuum of information about sex, sexual imagery, sexual content, sexual innuendo, etc. Born in 1946, small town in rural Minnesota. No TV till the late 50s; the local movie theater ran standard fare--westerns, comedies, an occasional monster flick, that sort of thing. Small library, etc. PURE and WHOLESOME. — Bitter Crank

It sounds like a good life. Who needs all this fuss over sex? Keep it private and don't harass an individual with the constant bombardment with it.

There was far too little in the way of information, too little content, too little sexual imagery. Like, none. Hey, great for first graders, but not so great for 16 year olds. On the other hand, children don't benefit from a glut of information, imagery, content, innuendo either. Unless the parents are AWOL, there is no reason why children would be over-loaded. — Bitter Crank

Who needs it?

Children can get over-supplied with sexual content too early when they are given the means to peruse the internet and cable TV without supervision and oversight. Even without sexual content being available, it isn't healthy for children (or adults either) to be transfixed by the social media on digital devicee for hours on end--practically 24/7. — Bitter Crank

There's an unnecessary burden on parents to be always there, watching, directing, and supervising children. It's quite a failure of society to leave all the burden on the parents to raise a child, whereas society is just this thing out there not actively encouraging growth and identity formation.

But there are Buddhists out there that practice celibacy, successfully. As far as I know, there is no requirement for people to have sex. It's just something that you can choose to indulge in or not. Just like one can have cake or not.

Personally, I think Buddhism and Stoicism hit the nail on the head as to living in virtue and true to oneself. Sex is fine in private; but, the reliance of advertisement on sex and other sources of media to sell products is worrying.

Buddhist’s views on suffering, desire, attachment, ego with its ultimate telos as Nirvana imply a certain amenable view of human nature, which I think is simply false and utopian. No matter how much you practice or how much teachings you follow, human nature won’t change and neither will you. — Emptyheady

You seem to imply that because something is fatalistic in its teaching that that should be avoided; but, then you arrive at the conclusion that the human condition is even more fatalistic. This is a sort of reductio, no?

The latter, however, I see as preferable (as long as both partners are aware of the circumstances and consensual) to pretending to have full top-down intellectual control of the sexual drive and repressing it for whatever religious or ideological reason (preferable for a normal male at least - as mentioned earlier). I would consider that to be something like the intellectual level of the self being hijacked by the social level and making war on the biological level. As BC pointed out, not good. — Baden

This is a presumptuous claim to make. Many people have the self-mastery and sense of self well developed enough to be able to say no to even such a desire as to have sex. The situation is much worse for growing and developing children growing up surrounded by media and advertisements promoting sex at such a young age.

Yes, have you seen this?

"Neurosis" and "society" are a combo package. In order to construct society we have to limit our individual drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites. Limiting natural drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites produces neuroses. "Limit" isn't the same as "blocking", however. It's a fair tradeoff. Society makes all kinds of things possible, and we have more or less learned to live with the resulting neuroses.

"Living with neuroses" is about as close to perfect psychological health as we are going to get. — Bitter Crank

Not true.

Society plays tricks with the individual in terms of showing the guys who have more sex/money/material wealth as the winners. Children are growing up oversexed and underfucked with all sorts of self-esteem issues due to the image society projects of a 'healthy' and 'successful' male.

What you're saying is basically something along the lines of saying "I'm not thinking about sex!".

But, why do I need commercials and online advertisements peddling me the same old in regards to sex if one does not want it?

Getting back to the OP. No, I don't think sex is "idolized" in the west. Sex like violence is repressed in every human society, some more so than others. I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man) is bound to lead to neurosis. — Baden

It seems to me that there is a neurosis with the subject of sex. For people to talk about it as something healthy and something that ought to be done instead of never is an indication of a pathology inside society.

No I don't dismiss evidence, I dismiss your interpretation of it. The World Trade center fell after a plane hit it. That's our evidence. You say it fell because the impact of the airplane had in damaging its structural integrity. Or you say bombs were planted inside of it. Or whatever. I, who am more knowledgeable than you in engineering, will say that it fell because fire spread across multiple floors in a steel frame structure, thereby weakening its stiffness, combined with the floors tying the columns together collapsing and thereby the effective lengths of the columns doubling and therefore the maximum buckling load they could carry becoming less than a quarter of the initial value (taking into account reduction in stiffness due to the fire as well). Now because I understand how buildings work, I can have a holistic view, and I know what the right explanation for the facts is, regardless of what folks peddle, and think the facts are saying or whatever nonsense. Now I don't even need to test this (but I have in fact tested it on a computer model, and it is correct), to know that it is the case. It's the one with the largest explanatory framework for what happened. — Agustino

Actually, fires have never brought down steel buildings, ever, in the past. And, no plane had to hit WTC7; but, supposedly office fires brought it down also. It's an insult to the intelligence and effort of the engineers who build the World Trade Centers, who by the way actually overengineered the buildings to withstand a plane hit. What you're describing was first called the "pancake effect", which NIST even walked back on due to its absurdity.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Do you want us to discuss your personal sexual feelings? I'd be more than happy to -- your lack of sex is a fascinating topic, and I would love to make you the object of prurient speculation, but you might not want that. — Bitter Crank

I don't understand it myself. I suppose something happened a long long time ago that doesn't want to be brought up; but, is a need of attention. Either that or I'm telling myself a crock of shit. Really confusing as I shouldn't have problems satisfying this urge; but, clearly have them as I've created this topic.

I'm curious how is the Nederlands preparing for climate change? Are we going to see floating cities?

Frankly, I don't see how climate change can be avoided. To what degree is debatable. It's just too much to ask for countries to do something about it when the same countries telling the other one's to do something were, in fact, the main contributors to the current situation.

Did Tarski get a mention here?

"Part of being a historian is that you quickly learn to become a hater of all things. And you realize that we are on a small boat in a world of shit, and there's a leak." — Ying

Yet, SOMEHOW self-interest makes the world go round.

I still struggle to accept that idea even though the evidence seems to support it all.

Well, if the only choices you have are sociopaths, delusional idealists and morons, the morons don't seem that bad. — Ying

Actually, it's probably worse. You have the idiots managed by sociopaths.

It's actually called 'deep state'.

Most research from public institutions indicates that the average voter has virtually no say when it comes to laws that are passed in congress.

It's also my personal tin foil hat view, that most of the decisions of highest importance are actually considered national security issues and are barred from public discussion and approval.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

It's always easier to play dumb than justify and defend a position. Dubya was a master at this.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource though.
As the supply dwindles the cost of doing modern business will increase. — m-theory

People in the 1970's never saw the advent of shale oil or fracking. As technology progresses comparatively to the scarcity of oil and coal, then technology will make efficiency gains to maintain a low to stable price.

Look at nuclear for example. Due to hysteria and emotional reasoning, nuclear has become an expensive source of energy despite being a potentially viable source of energy for decades. Laws and regulations have made it an unviable source in the US, while India and China are investing heavily in making it a safer and abundant energy source.

Which ever way you look at it, the only way is down. — Punshhh

That's a sentiment peddled by the left. I think, I've already demonstrated that climate change isn't a necessary evil.

While fossil fuels are cheap and abundant we should be transitioning away from reliance upon them. — m-theory

What compels you to say that? If we do a simple cost-benefit analysis, then investing in solar or renewables now is impractical. If we end up being uncompetitive wrt to China or India, then the best outcome is to seek the lowest cost technology to ensure growth. Furthermore, solar and other renewables would have to be adopted unanimously by all G20 nations. If one country backs out of said commitment, then the house of cards falls.

Go back to 1917 and ask yourself, what predictions in 1917 bearing directly on the economy have proved true in the intervening century? — Bitter Crank

I think predicting the future is irrelevant here, at least to the degree that you demand that it be predicted. For example, see how Warren Buffet makes his money. And surely, the economy is almost at 20k, an all-time high.

So, Question, we can be much more sure of negative climate developments than we can of beneficial economic developments. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if you've gotten the point of this topic; but, climate change up to a certain point is actually beneficial to the economy and the world. If the smart scientists are right that a small increment in temperature will lead to a runaway effect, then we will walk over that bridge when the time comes (60-100 years from now).

I've been talking with a friend and essentially the argument goes that limiting growth today (sacrificing GDP) instead of saving it at a higher discount rate over, say 60-100 years when the discount rate will lead to a significantly higher return on saved money, then most of these prognostications will come to fruition is better than sacrificing current GDP growth and then tackling the problem of climate change in the future.

Another point worth mentioning is if coal and natural gas, which are the cheapest available sources of power are abundant, then we ought to utilize them to achieve the maximum amount of growth possible. Then, when the resources run out or there are other cheaper options, then move onto utilizing those options.

Well, call it what you want. I don't think any conservatives are jumping on the Musk-Mars interstellar highway.

Are you just suggesting that we're doomed, because the US right will probably manage to block any effective action from the US? — andrewk

No, I'm actually making the case that climate change isn't as bad as it is portrayed to be.

It's a long shot but I think that there is a faint hope of a solution coming from China, who stands to suffer much worse from climate change. — andrewk

Yes, I'm pretty sure China is much more informed on the matter than even the U.S.

However, I'm not all that worried about the future, to be honest. China is well on its way to making solar grid parity with respect to coal and natural gas. Furthermore, they're investing heavily in nuclear. China will probably leverage their position with other BRIC members to offset the dangers of excessive climate change. It's really is a matter of time until that happens. Hopefully sooner than later.

Progress doesn't come from competition. Innovation is never the result of competition. Think of your own innovations. It's always finding a niche, doing something differently, being creative, thinking outside the box. — Agustino

I'd argue that innovation is encompassed by competition. Meaning competition and innovation aren't two mutually exclusive ideas. Take China for example. They will always have a strong comparative advantage over the US in terms of cheap labor and cheap raw materials. I do agree, however, that innovation is central to any service based economy...