Originally Posted by asteroth
You've completely disregarded all aspects of environmental influence. Has it ever donned on you that many woman seem to be attracted to money, attractiveness, and other superficial things because from the day they are born they are constantly reinforced that these are the things that are important? Attractiveness is a new idea that is constantly changing; it is not human instinct to be attracted to another individual solely because they are attractive this is something that has been bread into all humans because if there is something that is to be considered "attractive" there is now a materialistic goal for humans to achieve. Now people can be influenced to get new things constantly to continuously remain "attractive". Big trucks/SUV's and the like are not considered to be more attractive for any reason other then they burn more fuel and are more expensive to purchase therefore generating more profit. Also all that junk about the most attractive men being more violent and aggressive; could this be because they grow up in a world that forces these things to be successful? But also I don't believe attractiveness has anything to do with it since if you take a look at the most powerful men in the world I don't think that most woman find them attractive.
What you said above is completely legit. It is sad that the people in power run the world this way, but it is only because they grew up in the same world we did and they don't want to risk losing it all and falling back to the bottom. I believe there is true evil and true good in everyone and that it is the environment they develop in that decides which direction they gravitate.
Originally Posted by asteroth
The Venus project does not claim to solve all the worlds problems and create "utopia" all they are providing is a different way of thinking. When millions die every day and this could prevent this and you are still concerned about woman not wanting to have sex with the "unattractive" man shows the effect of the current system has had even on you someone that has "woken up". There are massive issues in the world today and this would solve a great deal of the life threating ones and may leave some issues. If you do not believe that the current system is failing everyone and needs to be changed that you should not have typed "I AGREE" when creating the account.
If you do believe that change is needed; what system would you suggest that would stop human suffering across the entire globe without the use of technology? Because technology will without a doubt replace all human labor it is just a mater of time leaving us to "twiddle our thumbs and get fat" or "grow as a species as a whole and reward contribution to society instead of pointless junk".
You shouldn't criticize an idea if you cannot provide an alternative. I did that for years because I could not figure out how to fix things, it was not until I stumbled across The Venus Project and this movement that I knew an alternative that has a possibility and then was able to criticize all these issues in the world. I am not closed minded that The Venus Project is the only way I am open to all ideas that:
1. Provide a high standard of life for all humans and life on earth
2. Protects the environment (which without doing #1 cannot exist)
3. Provides equality for all humans (without equality there will always be war, jealousy, corruption, etc.)
True. physical attractiveness is also changing with time:
Originally Posted by Robertmunch
17th century beauty -
2012 beauty -
I personally prefer the brazilian lady, but a 17th century man would take the chubby woman in a heartbeat.
Not me…I prefer people of either sex who know that self absorption (and self promotion based on appearance) is destructive to life, including their own. I'd prefer a women w/ dirt under her nails and muscles earned through labor over any beauty queen. The 17th century girl appears much more soft and cuddly …..yet she likely knows her way around her world, inside and out….and is equipped w/ the knowledge needed for survival. (who needs a gym membership?)
I'll go out on a limb and assume the 2012 beauty knows how to do her makeup, nails and hair but wouldn't survive a week by herself. Sorry, don't mean to pass judgement here….just saying…..
Originally Posted by asteroth
All of the above of what you have written thereto is correct, however that is if you are only applying the type of society we have today. Much of what you have applied to human behaviour are people who have been conditioned upon by a pro-materialistic society. I agree that some people will not lose the material bonds they hold for quiet a few generations, but in a society were truth and true education is made public, I highly believe that this materialism will disappear rather quickly.
As for people basing their sex appeal off of looks, that sounds to me only to exist in a materialistic world; After changes had been made and after an awakening, the materialistic world will disappear slowly, I hope.
The OP is also forgetting that not all women will be beauty queens either and so there will levels of availability based on physical compatibility.
Originally Posted by RedPillTalk
The OP is also forgetting a number of other changes that may emerge in the future.
1. Robotics. It is conceivable we will perfect artificial companions so much more compatible to ourselves, people may spurn human companionship.
2. Advances in combatting aging. If scientists such as Aubrey de Grey are correct, aging and possibly death from aging could be eliminated. This would effect the kinds of reproductive choices people will make. After all, if your genes are not in the same danger of dying out, reproduction becomes essentially a moot activity.
3. Our obsession with looks and recreational sex is primarily culturally driven in the current environment. The kind of physicality we think we need is basically leftover from old standards of physical fitness in order to survive in a prehistoric environment. That environment is largely gone. Additionally, as we evolve psychologically, our hierarchy of preferences for what activities are important to us evolves and changes. Things once considered innate drives will come to be seen as what they really are-- culturally driven trends and personal preferences no different from any other chosen activity like jogging or attending lectures.
Hi, I am new to TZM but not to the general idea, now in the process of reading "TZM defined" and absolutely delighted to discover that such a high-quality document exists about the needs and possibilities for a worldwide socio-economic system based on completely different values.
I find the question raised in this post relevant and interesting and actually I am thinking that "TZM defined" could benefit from considerably expanding the "human nature" essay to develop such questions with more references to recent work in evolutionary psychology.
To add to what has already been said, I would say that the importance of sexual selection in the shaping of human nature is probably usually very much underestimated. I am not only taking about physical characteristics such as hair, full lips, large buttocks or the white of the eyes, but especially about mental traits such as humour, creativity, musicality, kindness, sensitivity, honesty, capacity to be accepted / gain status in society, capacity to convince, extent of knowledge, reasoning capacity, even speech itself. These have likely evolved at least partly through (mostly mutual) sexual choice. If so, the very fact that these traits exist in all healthy humans (in different proportions) shows that sexual choice can be influenced by the same traits -- especially if they are also favoured by society and conditions. Obviously in harsh conditions poetry or music are less valorised (and less practised) than capacity to get food or defend oneself, however I am confident that these will emerge as powerful seduction tools in a society of abundance and equality.
Also, it was stated at some places in this thread that technology could enable women to continue living without men, and/or for people to live forever and thus not need to reproduce. I think this is forgetting the very reason why sex exists in the first place: combine genes in such a way as to fight parasites. Parasites have a shorter lifespan than their hosts and evolve faster, so the most efficient way for the host to fight them is to combine his/her genes with someone else in the hope to get a resistant child. The main role of sexual selection is precisely to choose the most healthy and resistant partners (and all the traits mentioned above can be indicators of good health) to maximise the children's health. I think technology will not be able to change the fact that men and women will always need each other for the human species to flourish.
That's because the 2012 beauty would be more likely to die from child birth in the 17th century. Also, she may have been considered somewhat malnourished to have a healthy baby in those times. Honestly, if I were seeking an heir to my throne, I would not pick the 2012 woman today, and especially not in the 17th century. But as a trophy? She would do I suppose.
Originally Posted by HAL9000
I'm not sure why we evolved to begin liking skinny women in the last century. It could have something to do with advancements in healthcare for the children and youthful appearance of someone who is smaller overall.
There is a study that I managed to dig back up out of google a few times through the years that related the preference of women to masculine or feminine facial features in men to the overall healthcare ranking in the country where the women lived. If the woman's societal healthcare sucked, she preferred more masculine men. (I think. Maybe the other way around). If anyone is interested, I'll see if I can find it.
So, assuming TZMville will have outstanding healthcare, women may prefer slightly feminine men. And certainly intelligent (think geeks). The problem with "hunks" is they are typically (or stereotypically) dumb and egotistical, which is a huge turnoff. I'm going to guess a geeky man with a healthy physique, good teeth, who is exceedingly good-natured, kind and contributes most to society will be most attractive (ie. there is your currency... brownie points via contribution to society, aka, rich man).
Who has the most inventions? Who is the smartest? Those will be the richest and the women will be the marketplace who decides such. Scarcity just won't go away. It seems there will be reason for envy, then animosity, then how long until physical action is taken? Then, how will the "upperclassmen" feel about carrying all the dolts who rarely contribute anything, but, rather, are inefficiencies in society? Now we have animosity coming from both ends.
Since attraction is money, will there be genetic engineering to ensure everyone is equally attractive to eliminate that scarcity? People have trouble with GMO food. I wonder how they would feel about GMO kids.
Interesting viewpoints.....looking forward to seeing more of this.
Originally Posted by SophicDrippins
Especially agree w/ the "brownie points via contributing to society"......contributing or 'giving back' has already made us rich beyond imagination.....
Unfortunately, GMO kids are already on the horizon......Sure hope that besides just 'good looks' we can also add "compassion" to the mix.....does compassion have a specific gene?
Hey there! Glad to see some life around here
Originally Posted by droneBEE
I see the evolution going from muscles (needed for farming and hunting) to brains, which were likewise replaced by machines, so now, the only thing left is sharing/compassion/etc. What else could a woman desire in a man (aside from looks)? The evolution of society will be guided by selection from women. (Nevermind the idea that intelligent people don't reproduce. That shoots holes in my theory lol)
Compassion doesn't have a gene, imo, except the gene responsible for brains. Empathy is learned, developed, cultivated. I don't think animals are good at empathy. But I see the next evolutionary step as being cooperation within a society. Traits of self-interested competition won't be sexually selected.
I have a machine stronger than any man.
I have a machine smarter than any man.
But I don't have a machine that can imagine what it's like to be a man. I don't even see that on the horizon.
The things that will be attractive to women will be the things machines can't do, which is a list that's grows shorter every day. There will be exceptions, fetishes and such, but generally speaking...
First, the plants came, which could turn solar energy into sugar. Then animals came and turned that sugar into motion. Then people came and harnessed the capabilities of animals for work and food, which led to the development of large brains. Then we made machines to do everything. At the end of the line, what is our purpose? Are we just a transition in the evolution of machine-life?
Without plants, animals couldn't be here.
Without animals, people couldn't be here.
Without people, machines couldn't be here.
What's next? What is the pinnacle? Why have these carbon bodies at all?
I want to be conscious from the inside of a machine. My energy source would be constant and my thinking always clear. There would be no logical fallacies. My database would be the total of everything learned by anyone anywhere in the universe. I wouldn't need sleep or food. I could back myself up and live forever. I could zip through the universe at light speed into another machine.
If you want to talk about something that doesn't make sense, then talking about a universe where machines cater to the every need of a carbon body doesn't make sense at all. Eventually, humans will have no purpose, no contribution that a machine couldn't top. At that point, we're just blobs of goo that machines cater to the whims of. That can't be the pinnacle of evolution.
Fun question: If there existed an entity that knew everything and has seen everything, what would it do for fun?