4 ms·
>If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first
by fecklessyouth 12y ago
>If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction.
If this is how nature intended, why does it require thousands of years of technological progress to get there?
- Elrac 12y agoIt's completely erroneous to think that nature "intends" anything. That would require intellect (at least a little), and that's only within brains, to the best of our knowledge. Things happen, in evolution and elsewhere, when random chance and external pressures come together.
- fecklessyouth 12y agoI don't mean "nature" as an explanation for action, as in your second line, but as a guide for it. The context in the article uses it in the guiding sense. My point is that the article uses "nature" in a very short-sighted and artificial sense. I do think that discussion of "nature" can be part of a broader teleology for human action, but that's obviously not what the author is attempted.