Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Who would've thought dying could be so fun?

  1. #1 Who would've thought dying could be so fun? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Why is there addiction?

    No, I am not looking for a description of the chemical processes that form it or lead to it. I am not looking for a phsychological explaination of weak wills or whatever else you might have up your sleaves. In fact, the question was a bit rhetorical.

    The idea that I have here would probably be easiest understood if we personified the whole evolutionary survival of the fittest concept.
    Now assume that their is some kind of guided attempt at perfection in all things behind it all. What kind of a role would addiction play in the whole grand scheme of things?

    Surely it doesn't make sense to put a drive towards destabilizing a finely balanced system into that system. Hell, normal wear and tear caused by aging is bad enough.

    So again, why put in a drive towards death? Why make things that destroy the creature, undermine it's physical stability, so damn alluring?

    If you are still confused as to what I am talking about, I'll dumb it down for ya.

    Cheesburgers=heart attacks
    (but they're so damn tastey)
    Smoking=cancers of all shapes and sizes
    (so why do so many people not only start, but continue?)
    crack, heroin, pcp, etc...=death, leagle trouble, and god only knows..
    (but they're fun. and addictive from the start.)

    So why are we wired to love what kills us? Mind you, I'm not talking about a romantice kinda involvement here. (though at times it can seem that way.) What I am saying is that even though we know this shit is bad for us, we still do it, as worse yet, if you are addicted, especially to the harder substances, you body and mind will rebell if you try to quit.

    So what part does this, would this, could this play in evolution. It certainly seems like a huge flaw to want to propagate, until you look at what species gets hit the hardest.

    Us.

    Yeah, I could get a rabbit hooked on crank, or teach rover to do lines, and they would be just as hooked as we are, but they have the benifit of lower intelligence. Firstly, they can't make the shit, and secondly, even if they could, why would they? We are talking about creatures whose primary concern, everyday, is survival. When is the last time you were worried about survival on a day to day basis?

    Addiction hits us. We who have moved down from the trees and managed to eek out a pitiful existance of cellphones, dvd's, and automobiles. Of birth control, microwaves, and MTV. And I am not talking about just drugs and alcohol.
    We get addicted to anything. Sex, adreniline, reality tv. Hell, half of the psychological disorders out there could be explained as a from of addiction. Why are we so unique?

    Because we think.
    We don't just think. We think abstractly, and to ends that are, at times, so extreme as to be pointless.

    But let me clear up something here and now. This is not anti thought. I'm all for thought, and alot of it. and here is where addiction fits in. Thought is, like any other evelutionary avenue, a trait which must be honed and fine tuned. What good is thought without the will to act upon it: Without the self control so as not to be governed by instincts and emotion; for if thought has an opposite it would be embodied quite nicely by those two qualities.

    So how best to weed out those who don't have the self control, those who act out of emotion and instinct as opposed to reason? Addiction. What rational mind would knowingly indulge in any pastime that not only threatens its very existance, but does so with very little, even relatively, in return? Perhaps a week willed one? Perhaps one that acts out of an emotional desire to belong and fit in to a group? Perhaps one to afraid to refuse such a propsition when offered, simply because it's refusal holds the posibility of some temporary rejection by a peer?

    If viewed this way, addiction isn't a condition, it a preditor. One that helps the whole of our species by preying upon those that don't have what it takes to survive. A culling of the herd.

    Personally, I find the thought kinda comforting.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    All right.

    You are not looking for any true evidence or explanations, rather pseudo-bullshit to explain the phenomenon to your buddies - who all are absolutists.
    I'm guessing here.

    First of all: you fuck up the whole premise by including the survival of the fittest analogy.
    Because, when the survival of the fittest is effective, it means that the participants are active in the exercise.
    The high and mighty who exclude themselves from taking part in the conditions that dictate the ramifications can not claim to possess superiour features. For they did not partipicate.

    You think that the wolf who sits on his ass when the other wolf's use their abilities to hunt gets to inseminate?

    Comparing dope to hunting is as good of an analogy as the natural selection.
    muahaha

    Place a wolf in a desert. The wolf that survives the longest, in this environment that is not its natural habitat, is the one that has the highest levels of nutrition present in its body.
    What a fuck up, how's that scientific, or even related to common sense?

    The medium in which these substances reside in is comparable to a desert - not our habitat.
    Therefore, in order to accurately study the phenomenon you'd have to include the features from the 'chemical world' into the facets of every last individual.
    And I know some people are pondering how snippets like abstinence, 'strength of mind' (haha, as if external, chemical pleasures are not ever chosen; only forced upon by weaknesses) are not a guarantee for other evolutionarily important features.

    And yet, this automatically must exclude, for example, aboriginals and such.
    For example, the Finnish people came to Europe 8500 years B.C, and alcohol has pretty much been present since.
    Makes this a tad advantageous since the characteristics have molded to include resistance to the substance.


    So, to follow your logic every single participant must do lines, shoot it up and puff the magic dragon. Savvy?
    You know, to find the worthy.

    And I'm more than certain that when you blurt out "So how best to weed out those who don't have the self control, those who act out of emotion and instinct as opposed to reason? Addiction" you have not familiarized yourself with the substances - personally.

    Because, the obstacles of mind that are faced when turning to substances are purely cultural, experiential, all and all derived from your surroundings.
    To follow the logic of 'survival of the fittest' you'd need to make every single Tom and Gary to do dope.
    You know, to see who can kick it and who can't; to enforce the stronger genetic structure.

    For example: alcoholism as a "disease for the populous" is a fucking myth.
    The genetics pretty much decide if you become strongly addicted to it.

    I, for example, like to drink, a lot (I am Finnish, after all).
    Drink a week straight, no biggie.
    Spend six months drinking 3 - 4 days every week, no biggie.

    Stay sober, no biggie.
    Alcohol is a past time. I don't think about it. It's not an addiction.
    And yet, this past time is not excluding me from a n y t h i n g

    And I agree that the hollywood wannabe-drunk-druggers are not the 'fittest', but at least they tested the addiction and failed. Betty Ford, HELP!

    You, I'm guessing here, merely sit there rambling yet not testing your genetic structure or your strength of mind.
    Before you reply, go and drink, smoke and do lines for 6 months at least.

    People transforming addiction and substances into containing alikeness with natural selection, HAH, what a joke.


    Oh, and do remember that if we infect out bodies with substances for a long enough of a time the body will adapt into accepting the external damage - just like an individuals become immune to antibiotics, though, thist touches generations - which would kind of strengthen the general consciousness and general abilities.


    And on an individual level: I'm not even going to try and list the perpetual masses, the great minds that were fucked up 90% of their time awake.



    Personally, I find the thought kinda comforting.
    Yes, you would find the thought comforting.
    Now.. Go back watching your son tackle the shit out of someone in the field and hurry home just to miss him rape some cheering fuck in the parking lot.

    I'm guessing here.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    Ok, that was just stupid and harsh.

    Imma' go and stick my head in the oven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Perfect
    Because, when the survival of the fittest is effective, it means that the participants are active in the exercise.
    The high and mighty who exclude themselves from taking part in the conditions that dictate the ramifications can not claim to possess superiour features. For they did not partipicate.
    I don't think that's correct: we all take part in the exercise that is living in a society, and many of us at some point face the challenges that drive people into addiction. I live in Holland, that strange little country where everyone can buy drugs legally. Still, I'm not a junk. Strong genes? :wink: I don't know whether it works that way, but it's an interesting idea.

    More generally, humans have for the first time in the history of our planet (if I'm not mistaken) created a situation where they can live practically without natural enemies. How do we keep our gene pool in order? Mostly because we still fall for nice (is healthy?) chicks and guys, and maybe partly due to processes as described by Tafkam (most junks don't get children).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789


    If you believe in survival of the fittest then viruses and germs have been on Earth longer than any other living organism that we know of.

    If you mean only humans than what was true 200 years ago is just reversed today for everyone could die at anytime for there were really no doctors that were any good. There were no dentists so many people died of simple tooth infections.


    Today, if you have enough money, you can afford the best doctors that money can buy and get the best treatments in order to live longer that your fellow humans. So that is the most important development that we have in order to be the fittest, money.

    Genes also have allot to do with the fittest humans and length of life. True what you eat and how you live in general helps or hinders your lifeline but if you were born with good genes they will help you prevent many illnesses from besetting you.


    To sum, it up get born to good geneticly matched parents, eat well, have allot of money and don't do things that will be harmful to you. Live a balanced and moderate lifestyle and things should be OK. We weren't ment to last forever. If we live over 75 without major problems today we are doing well, over 85 without major problems we are doing better and over 95 without ant major problems we are doing most excellant.







    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    cosmictraveler, can you please stop posting in all bold.

    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    cosmictraveler, can you please stop posting in all bold.

    Thanks.
    I have bad eyesight so it helps me to print in bold as to check my spelling easier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    Today, if you have enough money, you can afford the best doctors that money can buy and get the best treatments in order to live longer that your fellow humans. So that is the most important development that we have in order to be the fittest, money.
    But in order to have any effect on gene transfer, only life expectency before reproduction is relevant. Once you've produced offspring, it doesnt matter if you live 5 or 50 more years. In general I think we have increased our health mainly in older age (40+). For example: a rich man can elongate his life with organ transplantation or by having good doctors to deal with cancer or so. These issues mostly come up at older age, well after reproduction has occured. So in the relevant age I think wealth doesnt make that much difference.

    In general however I think you make a good point by saying that matters besides genetic inheritence play a big role in the present to decide who's fit and who's not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Tafkam Aruhpe:
    Found it.
    Next time, tell a girl.

    First, can't resist-

    To sum, it up get born to good genetically matched parents, eat well, have allot of money and don't do things that will be harmful to you. Live a balanced and moderate lifestyle and things should be OK. We weren't meant to last forever. If we live over 75 without major problems today we are doing well, over 85 without major problems we are doing better and over 95 without ant major problems we are doing most excellant.
    Yes.
    And makes sure to steer away from nicotine, caffeine, eat nothing but greens, get all your foliate, calcium, your B-12 and potassium, write a book on running, start a cult and then drop dead from a heart attack.

    Jimmy Fixx style:
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0109183.html

    You’ve just given a recipe for your planet to commit suicide, by the way.

    On topic:

    I think most of you missed the point. I may miss the point as well but I'm posting it anyway.

    You find man everywhere- in air, ocean, hundreds of miles below earth, heat, cold, and the coup de grace, outer space.
    What has opened these places to him is his thinking- its something so focused if not powerful that it forgoes sacred limits imposed by a planet millions of times the pathetic size of his body.
    But say he was ‘pure’.

    I mean, say thinking was completely unencumbered by emotion so that all his behavior was focused at all times, in all places, in all epochs.
    The planet would be suffocated with humanity..

    Where survival is an easy game to play with a gerbil still subject to its laws, the same game is demoted when confronted with human brainpower but not so much that it no longer applies and Game Over.
    Because since the most fit in the human species are the very ones most able to use their thinking most effectively, nature must sabotage his own body.
    And body=emotions

    His emotions become Trojan horses. With them, nature weaves her own weapon- the addictive personality.
    Those not as fit for control rot from the inside and waste their life on impulse and emotion that leads them round and round in blind circles.
    The crack addict, the obese, the smoker, alcoholic, are killed with nature’s candy.

    Mwaaha.
    Killed with nature’s candy. I like that.

    So pure logic would exhaust all resources on a species living way past its biological use with mortality rates almost annihilated by Reason. Something like what’s happening now but at least we have devotion, hate, and war all built on pure impulse.

    So thank god for the sticky, emotional causes that noble murderers rally to- the religions, the philosophies, and the politics.
    And thank god for the sticky, emotional properties of hate, lust, uncertainty, and depression that weed out those incapable of thinking with their own addictive personalities. We don’t have to kill them, they do it on their own

    Thank god for cheeseburgers and cocaine.
    Thank god for Jesus, Mohammad and Ezekiel.

    If we were as rigid and undistracted as bacteria, this planet would cave so thank god for emotional addictions that weed out those that “….don't have the self control, those who act out of emotion and instinct as opposed to reason”

    If viewed this way, addiction isn't a condition, it a preditor
    The ticking on a time bomb.

    Disclaimer:

    This post is null and void when Abraxas gets, you know, moody.
    And, I don’t ‘despise’ hate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman arditezza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    40
    It's all a form of escapism.

    Drinking, drugs, sex, religion, overeating, self-mutiliation, workaholics, avid runners and any addiction is simply a way to escape and not have to deal with certain things or a way of running away from those things. Ever wonder why people "find God" as a way to save them from another addition? They become "born again" and replace the obsessive nature of one addiction for the addictive nature of another. There is almost always a replacement.

    Everyone has a method of escapism from the world, and some are just more destructive than others but no less of an addiction. When you are addicted to something, you are replacing something you don't want to deal with with something you enjoy more. What you should do and what you want to do becomes a battle of selfish needs.
    Come join the Babbling Incoherents
    A forum of the humanities/philosophy/arts variety.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Tafkam,

    I find your idea interesting, but a number of problems present themselves.

    Now assume that their is some kind of guided attempt at perfection in all things behind it all. What kind of a role would addiction play in the whole grand scheme of things?
    This idea of "a guided attempt at perfection" is distasteful. It leaves a lingering residue of mythos. Of Jeebus.

    Evolution doesn't require a guiding hand. And it doesn't seek 'perfection'. What one generation might do. Another generation might undo. And each are in the thrall of the same evolution.

    However, I don't think that your idea hinges upon this guided evolution so it can be discarded without any regret. All we need do is look at how the various traits are utilized after the fact rather than conjecturing that they were purposefully placed within the system to fulfill a specific function.

    So how best to weed out those who don't have the self control, those who act out of emotion and instinct as opposed to reason? Addiction.
    A question to ask is whether or not addiction actually does weed out the lacking in self-control. As has been mentioned already by Pendragon, winnowing processes that act after the reproductive age are not really as restrictive as those which prevent one from ever reaching reproductive age.

    I think that most addictions, especially those you've given as examples, don't impinge upon reproductive success at all. Not many teenagers and twenty somethings dropping dead from heart attack and stroke from eating too many cheeseburgers. The same can be said for the examples of addictions. Often, the damaging effects of addictions start slow and compile over time.

    Rotting from the inside out, so to speak.

    But, in the meantime, there's nothing preventing lots and lots of copulation.

    And. Consider as well. That the mind that lacks self control is more apt, not less, to breed indiscriminately.


    Now. We can look at the situation as one in which the addicted are less able to care for their children and themselves. A crackhead feeds his crack habit. Not his child. And is hard pressed to keep a job in order to do either.

    But, I think that, while this effect cannot be wholly eradicated, we can say that it is lessened by living within society. Surrogate parents are a tradition from very early on in our history. In our modern age, surrogate parenting has reached heights that have never before been dreamied of. Now, if you can't care for your children, then the state will be happy to do so for you. Hell, they'll come to your home and take them away, thus leaving the addict without the burden of caring for the child they've birthed and able to feed their own addictions even more. In this way, by an ironic twist of circumstance, addiction might actually increase the likelihood of an addict's child making it through to adulthood and breeding age.


    An interesting notion that arises from this interplay of society and individual is that of the evolving society. Man has been social since long before abstract thought ever arose; but, with the advent of that new means of communication and reference, society has grown ever more and more complex. Growing from the small group. To the larger tribe. To the more organized city. To the nation. To the state. To the world of today.

    We must remember that evolutionary time scales are huge and we can say that much of human evolution has pretty much stopped since it chanced upon the singularly successful tactic of abstract thought. Or. More specifically. After this tactic succeeded to such an extent that it virtually pulled man out of the natural cycle. So much so, that now it is so easy to believe that man is not an animal because he's such a different kind of animal.

    So. To a large extent, evolution has not occurred during the millenia that this effect of addiction might actually form a sort of selective pressure. Therefore, it hasn't had an effect on man. However, we must bear in mind that although man himself may not have changed much over this time, the society in which he lives has.

    A concept that arises often is the birth of a new lifeform in the abstraction of man. Society. A new sort of creature altogether. And society shapes man, not genetically, but culturally. So. Still evolution. But a different sort of evolution. One which happens on shorter time scales.

    So why are we wired to love what kills us?
    And:
    What rational mind would knowingly indulge in any pastime that not only threatens its very existance, but does so with very little, even relatively, in return?
    Why do you think that these things give little in return? Everything you've given as an example has some useful purposes. Nature doesn't care about cholesterol that kills at 50+ years of age. It cares about the nice supply of fat and protein gleaned from an excellent food source. All the drugs you've listed do have some medicinal values and must be weighed with their detrimental side effects.

    It's not that you're drawn to what kills you, but rather that you're being distracted by the end result of the process. Interestingly, this very ability is a direct result of our abstract nature and strange brain. See my post to Abraxas later on the subject of the frontal lobe.

    Perhaps a week willed one? Perhaps one that acts out of an emotional desire to belong and fit in to a group? Perhaps one to afraid to refuse such a propsition when offered, simply because it's refusal holds the posibility of some temporary rejection by a peer?
    Complicated. What you're saying is not entirely without merit, but at the same time it's not so simple.

    You're presupposing a society that pushes addictions on its people. That it's cool to smoke. And 'everybody's doing it'. This is not always the case, nor has it always been the case. In fact, for most of the history of man, I should think that there was little impetus to either do these things or not do them. People were impartial to most of these substances until quite recently. To each their own. And. In some cases, these things are shunned. And to do them means breaking society's code. Does this mean that these people have stronger wills than those that cave to societal pressure? They're both doing the same thing.

    And. Too. Consider who's more likely to procreate. The one that shuns society. Or the one that embraces it.


    Ok. Pretty long already. Let me just touch on a couple of things real quick before moving on to Abraxas' post.

    First. Have you considered the concept of novelty with addiction? Consider the American Indian. He has a well-known weakness for two things.
    Alcohol.
    And Sugar.

    Why? Is it proper to say that they have a genetic predisposition to be addicted to these substances? Or is it rather that they are missing the genetic resistance to the addiction?
    The latter, right?
    (Hmm. This kinda throws out the idea that evolution isn't a force to consider in humans, doesn't it?)

    And what of cocaine? Legend has it that Atahualpa, a king of the Incas, uttered a curse that the leaf of the Coca plant would be white man's curse and the native's boon. Native peruvians have chewed coca leaves for millenia with little ill effect. (This is a somewhat spurious argument as there is a difference between cocaine and coca. I have no data on the addictive qualities of the leaf to non-natives.)

    Tobacco? It's hard to believe, but tobacco was introduced to Europeans only in the last 500 years. Again, I've seen no real research into the relative addictiveness of nicotine between european and native genetic strains, but I find it difficult to believe that the natives are as addicted to it.

    Tangent alert: Tomatos too are a recent import into European lives. In fact, they were once considered to be deadly poison. It took a great deal of time for the stigma to pass and for the tomato to enter the halls of staple as it has. Further tangent warning: Do you know what the ancient Romans used for catsup? A concoction of minced pickled and fermented fish called garum. Ick. Wonder if it was addicting? (Bet you can't eat just one...)


    One last thing. This is a real tangent but interesting.
    On the subject of animals and addictions.
    http://www.dispatchesfromthevanishin...h11/d11_4.html
    Animals getting drunk is quite common. And I think that you could easily say that an animal is addicted to cheeseburgers... or picnic baskets.


    Alright. On to...

    Abraxas,

    Because since the most fit in the human species are the very ones most able to use their thinking most effectively, nature must sabotage his own body.
    Interesting. Killed with nature's candy.
    But. Does it cull them? That's the question.
    To kill an animal is not to remove it from the genepool. Not if it's already bred.

    But, let's look at the idea of the greater dependence on thinking requiring a lesser dependence on the body. To move the beast man away from the body and into the abstract realms of thought requiring him to lose those fortification which even that little gerbil has and which man is lacking.

    What is the main difference between the human brain and an animal brain? Let's stick with mammals to keep the comparison simple.

    The frontal lobe.

    The frontal lobe of a human is enormously swollen compared to the frontal lobe of all other animals, including the chimpanzee, our closest relative.
    Now. What traits does the frontal lobe possess?

    One thing is that it is not a sensory lobe or a motor lobe. It doesn't deal with the body but rather with the brain. It's like a grand conductor. Taking the bits and pieces that the other portions of the brain have drawn in from the body and processed and it.... what? Well. It does lots of things with them, doesn't it?

    A common frontal lobe disorder is OCD. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The frontal lobe (in conjunction with certain limbic structures) directs attention. It is this very shift in attention that gives us the ability to think abstractly. Shifting our attention from the object itself to its symbolic representation and from the symbolic representation to an even more abstract realm which, at times, has little to do with with concrete reality. (This is, of course, another topic entirely...) From this wonderfully swollen frontal lobe that gives us so many wonderful things that we would be shit without, also comes foibles.

    Foibles such as addiction. And not merely physical addictions such as heroin. But mental addictions. Like to television. Or to cake. Or to... the internet. Many things. Some of which are more detrimental than others but all tend to become detrimental when they become obsessed over. When the frontal lobe takes a shit and gets stuck in a single track.

    Addicted. Like a record skipping over.... over.... over.... over.... over.... over.... over....
    Heh.


    An interesting thing about this swollen frontal lobe is in neural competition.
    When we are young, neural pathways go everywhere willy nilly. And through a form of darwinian competition the weaker, less useful connections are culled.

    Think of what this swollen frontal lobe means to this process. The connections from the frontal lobe begin to overwhelm the other connections. Both from other areas within the brain and from the body. The frontal lobe has an advantage in the competition of neural connections and after the competitions are over, it has far more interconnections within the brain than any other portion. Through this mechanism, we gain 'control' of areas that are, to lesser animals, completely instinctual. In this way we took control of the larynx which is totally instinctual in animals (by the way, our speech also depends upon chance adaptations that lowered the larynx in the throat as well. It couldn't have happened specifically for the purpose of speech production but was rather utilized by the new form of communication. The term for this is exaptation. Or spandrels, if you prefer Gould.)

    So. Because of this swollen frontal lobe, our lives begin to center more and more around the inner workings of our brain rather than the sensory information coming in from our environment. We have become less sensitive to the world because we have become more sensitive to ourselves.

    I mean, say thinking was completely unencumbered by emotion so that all his behavior was focused at all times, in all places, in all epochs.
    The planet would be suffocated with humanity..
    I'm not so sure about that. I think a man 'unencumbered' by emotions is a man without a reason to do anything. Logic fails. Logic requires an initial stimulus. You have to want to be logical. Want is an emotion. Emotion is a driving factor.

    I think if man were unencumbered by emotion, we'd have been vanquished long ago. Not even a memory.

    If we were as rigid and undistracted as bacteria...
    I like that you use 'distracted'.

    This post is null and void when Abraxas gets, you know, moody.
    Moody? You? Oh come now.
    Now. If you'd said pissy....

    And, I don’t ‘despise’ hate.
    Ah. But do you hate 'despite'?


    Arditezza,

    It's all a form of escapism.
    Isn't it also a sort of inclusionism?

    I find it interesting that you use the term 'escapism from the world'.
    It brings to mind the abstract mind. That we live more in our head than in the world.
    Which world are we escaping then? The physical world? The abstract world? Fleeing one abstraction for another?
    Hmmm.

    Alright. Long enough.
    Gonna borrow Abraxas' phrase and say that my hands are hurting...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Also Known As's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    88
    We evolved in a world where, for one example, fatty and sweet foods were very scarce. Our strong preference for them was only beneficial since they were both scarce and high in nutrition. Our (humans) present way of life has made it possible to gorge ourselves on foods selected just to appeal to our palate. That the ability to eat as much as we like of fatty, sweet foods amounts to an ability to poison ourselves seems to not matter.

    Invert mentioned how sweets effect native americans even more seriously than most derived from european stock. I've read where Type II diabetes rates on some soutwestern indian reservations are in the neighborhood of 80%. They have a very conservative metabolism that up until a moment ago in geologic time helped them survive in times of scarcity. Now it is a liability.

    Our bodies operate in a balance of pain and pleasure constantly. Do the right thing (eat when we are hungry, drink when we are thirsty, have a bowel movement when pressure builds up) we are rewarded with pleasure. Do the wrong thing (ignore hunger, ignore thirst, postpone the bowel movement) we are treated to discomfort that will escalate to outright pain. Ever wonder why a shot to the nads is so painful? Sure, there are lots of nerves there. But why so many? Producing sperm, and eventually coralling the tadpoles up some fallopian tubes, is what we are here for. Taking shots to the nads puts our very purpose for existence in jeopardy. Damage them and you cannot fullfill your purpose of passing on your DNA. So some very intense pain is in order to make sure you treat them with the respect they deserve.

    Endorphins flood the space between nerve cells and usually inhibit neurons from firing, thus creating an analgesic effect. On a lower level they can excite neurons as well. When endorphins do their work, the organism feels good, high, or euphoric, and feels relief from pain [analgesia]. Logically, endorphin levels go up when a person exercises, goes into labor, or is stressed out. Although they seem to be triggered by stress, endorphins can do more than relieve pain, they actually make us feel good.

    Like an evil twin, the morphine molecule locks onto the endorphin-receptor sites on nerve endings in the brain and begins the succession of events that leads to euphoria or analgesia.

    This imposter is more powerful than the body's own endorphins because the organism can actually control how much of the feel-good chemical hits the brain. Since we are all pleasure-seeking organisms, the motivation to self-administer such a drug is easy to understand.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../heroin/brain/

    By a pure cosmic joke, we discovered an artificial way to flood our brains with something that mimics our natural painkillers, endorphins. And we can flood our brain with them at will. I've repeatedly read that Heroin will make you feel better than you've ever felt before. It seems plausible to me, but I'll never know it from first hand experience.

    Our body regulates pain and pleasure autonomically, same as breathing and the rest. We cannot be trusted with these decisions. If we could control that amount of pleasure, and ignore pain, we'd all just sit around in an orgasmic stupor until we died.

    Genetic predispositions, culture, and environment will influence both the likelihood of becoming addicted to something, and what that something is. But I think for the most part that addictions at the root level are taking advantage of the pain/pleasure carrot and stick approach that motivates organims to survive, mate, and reproduce. We're just fluff surrounding our genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    23
    hi,

    evolution has to deal with the unexpectable, though it is of no use to compare nature with human intentions. this is anthropomorph.

    another part of your argumentation was the superiority of thought. Take into account, that brilliant murders and drug addicted artists dont lack intellect at all.
    Some people died young and have influenced the world history much more than others who died old. this can also be seen as a kind of fitness.


    Edit: in a mathematical way, there is also an fitness value of clones, who are not able to reproduce at all.
    Greetings,

    BM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 death wish 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    People do become addicted to substances that kill them but that has nothing to do with a death wish. We are filled with instinctive wants which drive us to obtain food, approval, and other feelings which we need to survive and reproduce. The problem is that in our modern environment there are so many substances which, when taken in, create new modes of satisfaction for which evolution has not been able to prepare us.

    People who become addicted to these substances get caught up in a cycle of rationalizing and denial because we tend to think in terms of obtaining what satisfies us, and the immediate reward is satisfying. Also, withdrawel creates unpleasant response in the body and further justification for continuing to take what is ultimately harmfull.

    People do not get addicted in order to die.

    charles
    http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: death wish 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    People do become addicted to substances that kill them but that has nothing to do with a death wish. We are filled with instinctive wants which drive us to obtain food, approval, and other feelings which we need to survive and reproduce. The problem is that in our modern environment there are so many substances which, when taken in, create new modes of satisfaction for which evolution has not been able to prepare us.

    People who become addicted to these substances get caught up in a cycle of rationalizing and denial because we tend to think in terms of obtaining what satisfies us, and the immediate reward is satisfying. Also, withdrawel creates unpleasant response in the body and further justification for continuing to take what is ultimately harmfull.

    People do not get addicted in order to die.

    charles
    http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

    good point. Actually I do work with game-addicted and drug-addicted people. But in my opinion. Other behaviour is instructed in the same way. Other stimuli (nice faces, money, odors) are also able to inflict changes in brain metabolism. Of course the changes are certainly not as strong. But there are also people, who are behaviour-addicted (compulsatory bahaviour)
    Greetings,

    BM
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •