These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Human Relationships And The Apocalypse
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-05-28 03:53:58 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
Sorry, can't go point by point.
-The reason we end up monogamous-- Why not? The other option is to have infinite temporary roommate friends. Some are cool, some have to be erased from your memory. Some won't wash dishes, some will consume your last canned ravioli/beer/bag of weed to 0. No matter. What matters is, everybody in the house is ultimately all looking for the Ultimate Mate. The one you can hang with, expose your soul to, and be appreciated by. And fuss with, like two parakeets in a cage. Nobody has any choice about that--- as fun as it might be, you cannot hang with your roomies forever. "Tomorrow Never Comes" - Creedence Clearwater Revival. No, does not apply.

-Yes, everybody has permission to have more than one child. Why? By not having more than one, did you stop some non-thinking person from having 15? Thinking people, please enjoy your life and pass the wisdom on! Denying yourself a hamburger will not stop an irresponsible person from eating 10 more. If the population in general has an irresponsible selfish mentality, you're not helping things by being a lonely responsible voice.

-Yeah, our poor Earth is wrecked. It can't be fixed by logic, traditional science, or next-generation technology. The 1/3rd of the world that did are just now starting to think about it, but the momentum of instant money-making negates them. And now the other 2/3rds of the world left behind are ready to get their share. Cutting edge physicists are pushing the edges, and bless 'em, governments gave them a little fraction of their budgets for building things. They can increase understanding. but they can't decrease basic irresponsible planet-killing selfishness. The ignorant people won't notice, and the 'leet' will notice, and do everything to try to take care of their tiny percentage of selves.

-"Love" Still undefined, after 30,000 years or so. I love my bearded dragon lizard, and he lives me, in a lizard way. Same for my cichlid fish, in their way, and my dog, cats, kids and wife. There's no defining point, it goes on as you go along. The theme is you look each other in the eye, go back and forth, and say "hello mate, here we go, support to you. Support to me too? I'll take it! High five!"

I like you practical, easygoing outlook on things. Compared to my melodramatic posts.

There are other alternatives to monogamy of course, like simply living alone. I could imagine living a life without a wife because I imagine it would allow quite a bit more freedom to spend time with the rest of your family and friends and to spend time doing other things you have a passion for. Of course if your partner is a nice person you will be doing everything you want to do anyway, with them at your side.

You are right about having more than one child, but I think that there are other reasons to not have any kids other than trying to help the world situation. For one thing, I wouldn't want my possible future child to grow up in dire circumstances having to experience some of the most horrible things imaginable. With the way things happen in this world, you never know what is going to happen in the next bit of history.

How long until people start dying off from all of our filth? Is it happening already? Many animals are dying off, perhaps another reason to not have any children is to purposely contribute as little as possible to the machine of humanity, kind of an act of harakiri. Respectful resignation.

Ultimately though, I just don't know. I am as uncertain as the future. It's why I made this thread. It is hard to discuss these things in real life because there are very few people who are even willing to give their thoughts to such topics.

Love. Still undefined. Yes. What is it? There are so many different ways to describe love. So many different feelings and energies that you could attribute to love. Is love the combined interconnection of all conscious beings? Is love the pylon through which we glimpse the eye of god? Is love simply a physiological / chemical design of nature which gives me a funny feeling on my private parts?

Thank you.
Falken Falcon
#22 - 2015-05-28 07:25:36 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
although I dislike the idea of ******* with people's freedoms, it could end up being a necessity.

Yes ofc the life token is only when the catastrophic population mass is reached/gonna be reached soon and has to be controlled harsly. To also add to the tokens is that at first it should be ½ tokens per person to bring the population down to the maximum sustainable till the 1 per person will be implemented.
Ares Desideratus wrote:

Oh yeah and this part
Quote:
And those who choose not to reproduce should. There are people who operate solely on emotion and ignore the stuff coming from their left.
I just want to make sure I understand you here. Do you mean that someone who chooses not to reproduce should instead choose to reproduce?

Or that a person who chooses not to reproduce is right and should stick to their guns and not reproduce at all?
That was badly written on my part.
What i mean is that people that usually chooses to not to reproduce should do it more that most people who do.

Aye, Sea Turtles
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#23 - 2015-05-28 10:47:58 UTC
We cause environmental strain on ecosystem and on us, we are not destroying the planet, planet and ecosystems had been thru worse things than man.

We will not destroy the planet, we will modify the ecosystem and in fact ourselves.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Eurydia Vespasian
Storm Hunters
#24 - 2015-05-28 14:28:24 UTC
Tbh monogamy is mostly about trust. I don't like the the thought of a boyfriend being emotionally invested elsewhere. That's a betrayal of trust. We at imperfect creatures. Contradictory and territorial. I'm sure those are all survival mechanisms in some way. But I wouldn't worry overmuch about who a partner was with before you. Not really your business and nor is it theirs to question your history.
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#25 - 2015-05-28 14:42:09 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
We cause environmental strain on ecosystem and on us, we are not destroying the planet, planet and ecosystems had been thru worse things than man.

We will not destroy the planet, we will modify the ecosystem and in fact ourselves.

Of course, we're not killing the planet, we're killing ourselves.

And once The Earth gets rid of us, it will happily live ever after. Well until the Sun swallows it.
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-05-28 15:02:38 UTC
Yes, true. More of a semantic problem in this case as I'm aware that we are no threat to the planet. When I said "destroying the planet" of course what I meant to say was what you guys, Hengle and Bagrat pointed out. We are no threat to the planet itself but we are modifying our own environment it's probably fatal for our species in the long run which is where the apocalypse comes in.

This brings us into another area of thought we I didn't address in the original post. The terms "natural" and "artificial" get thrown around a lot. Typically we refer to nature as animals, trees, water, air, earth, all of the things that make up the environment of life. And we refer to humanity and it's constructs as things which are artificial.

Don't you think that the very idea that humans are somehow separate from the rest of nature is incredibly vain, egotistical, and downright naive? Why is civilization somehow considered an "artificial" construct?

One way I've thought about it is that civilization is simply a natural phenomenon but it doesn't seem like civilization in general acknowledges the fact that we are a part of nature no matter how powerful we become.

Shouldn't anything that occurs in the natural universe automatically be considered to be a part of nature and not be put in a separate category?
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2015-05-28 15:10:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
With that philosophy in mind, it really does make the idea of trying to create a better world, a futile gesture. Those who question the status quo are so few that the rage against the machine is a seemingly impossible battle, and nothing can change the world.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#28 - 2015-05-28 16:08:15 UTC
Hengle Teron wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
We cause environmental strain on ecosystem and on us, we are not destroying the planet, planet and ecosystems had been thru worse things than man.

We will not destroy the planet, we will modify the ecosystem and in fact ourselves.

Of course, we're not killing the planet, we're killing ourselves.

And once The Earth gets rid of us, it will happily live ever after. Well until the Sun swallows it.

We are killing ourselves from the begining of man, it did not really made us extinct. Blink

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2015-05-28 20:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
Eurydia Vespasian wrote:
Tbh monogamy is mostly about trust. I don't like the the thought of a boyfriend being emotionally invested elsewhere. That's a betrayal of trust. We at imperfect creatures. Contradictory and territorial. I'm sure those are all survival mechanisms in some way. But I wouldn't worry overmuch about who a partner was with before you. Not really your business and nor is it theirs to question your history.

I don't know if being emotionally invested elsewhere is necessarily a betrayal of trust. Perceiving it to be that way doesn't mean it is so.

Nevertheless, I of course understand your point of view. I am in the same boat. I don't want a girlfriend who goes around being "emotionally invested" with other people because I think that it's gross and I refuse to take part in it. On the other hand I of course dislike it when good people are judged based on lifestyle choices that are harmless.

Speaking of trust betrayals, and speaking of nobody's business ... you say it is not my business who my partner was with before they were with me, and vice versa. Well I would have to agree. However, if you base your monogamous relationship on a foundation of trust, how could you ever trust someone who told you something was none of your business?

That is another phrase I've never liked. "None of your business". If it's none of my business why is it a secret? Don't you think that a relationship based on trust should have a philosophy of openness, of oneness, and devotion?

I'm not suggesting that people should find out all of the past lovers of their current partner. That would be ridiculous as well as pointless (not to mention it's none of your business). You also may not like what you find out about them if you do this. What I'm suggesting is simply that there is no point in being in a monogamous relationship between two people who have already had sex with other people. In this scenario, what is the point? Trust, is not a reason for me. You can't necessarily trust a virgin any more than you can trust an uberslut, even though you may think that you can.

Of course, you don't need a reason to love someone. They are the reason you love them. But if that's the case, why is there a need for monogamy in the first place? And why does there seem to be so much judgment in this world against people with different sexual preferences or lifestyles? It's all so confusing.

I feel like I'm running in circles here. I don't know if I'm making any sense or not, but I genuinely don't understand these things.
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#30 - 2015-05-28 21:13:35 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
Hengle Teron wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
We cause environmental strain on ecosystem and on us, we are not destroying the planet, planet and ecosystems had been thru worse things than man.

We will not destroy the planet, we will modify the ecosystem and in fact ourselves.

Of course, we're not killing the planet, we're killing ourselves.

And once The Earth gets rid of us, it will happily live ever after. Well until the Sun swallows it.

We are killing ourselves from the begining of man, it did not really made us extinct. Blink

Well, it will once we'll make it uninhabitable by us.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#31 - 2015-05-28 23:03:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Uninhabitable is very much overstatement. Humans build their own habitat to separate them from "cruel" nature and sometimes even from other man. Habitation can be build and often food is farmed inside with hydroponic farms, air and water is cleaned, but what should worry people is energy supply. It is crucial to maintain certain standart of living. Human "consumes" a lot of energy. People work to harvest it, so it has a price. if robots would harvest energy, and those robots would operate on this energy and maintain themselves and us, we would have everything for free, just like when fruit is growing on the tree and bird is eating it.

But there first must be an energy source. Apocalypse is when man does not care about energy source.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#32 - 2015-05-31 01:48:05 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Eurydia Vespasian wrote:
Tbh monogamy is mostly about trust. I don't like the the thought of a boyfriend being emotionally invested elsewhere. That's a betrayal of trust. We at imperfect creatures. Contradictory and territorial. I'm sure those are all survival mechanisms in some way. But I wouldn't worry overmuch about who a partner was with before you. Not really your business and nor is it theirs to question your history.

I don't know if being emotionally invested elsewhere is necessarily a betrayal of trust. Perceiving it to be that way doesn't mean it is so.

Nevertheless, I of course understand your point of view. I am in the same boat. I don't want a girlfriend who goes around being "emotionally invested" with other people because I think that it's gross and I refuse to take part in it. On the other hand I of course dislike it when good people are judged based on lifestyle choices that are harmless.

Speaking of trust betrayals, and speaking of nobody's business ... you say it is not my business who my partner was with before they were with me, and vice versa. Well I would have to agree. However, if you base your monogamous relationship on a foundation of trust, how could you ever trust someone who told you something was none of your business?

That is another phrase I've never liked. "None of your business". If it's none of my business why is it a secret? Don't you think that a relationship based on trust should have a philosophy of openness, of oneness, and devotion?

I'm not suggesting that people should find out all of the past lovers of their current partner. That would be ridiculous as well as pointless (not to mention it's none of your business). You also may not like what you find out about them if you do this. What I'm suggesting is simply that there is no point in being in a monogamous relationship between two people who have already had sex with other people. In this scenario, what is the point? Trust, is not a reason for me. You can't necessarily trust a virgin any more than you can trust an uberslut, even though you may think that you can.

Of course, you don't need a reason to love someone. They are the reason you love them. But if that's the case, why is there a need for monogamy in the first place? And why does there seem to be so much judgment in this world against people with different sexual preferences or lifestyles? It's all so confusing.

I feel like I'm running in circles here. I don't know if I'm making any sense or not, but I genuinely don't understand these things.

It seems like monogamy is about all that humans are able to handle, without going into drama overload and having extreme consequences. "The only two emotions that cannot be controlled are love and jealousy." -An 18th or 19th century French writer whose name I can't find or remember. It seems that cultures all around the world independently decided that having roving sexuality going on creates situations that are just too emotionally combustible. Too explosive for mom, dad, babies, dads, moms, grandmas and grandpas, and most of all-- neighbors.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-05-31 06:16:40 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-05-31 06:20:04 UTC
I came here expecting a rant about the beauties inherent in capsuleer-to-spaceship romance.

I should go.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#35 - 2015-05-31 06:48:34 UTC
1. butterfly's in the belly.

2. because that works best for them.

3. yes,significant damage,no it isn't too late,yes there is.

4. space travel is awesome way to fix us but it is also most unlikely managing resources and switching to alternate energies on global scale as well as "rebuilding" of nature is a way to go ,imo.

5. no


6. shouldn't be depends from many factors having two children that are secure in most aspect of their growing up or having 14 and selling them for food or inability to feed them are very different matters.if you live in areas of world where called by some "white plague"(low birth rate) take its hold it is even desirable to have at least one.



You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#36 - 2015-05-31 07:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
I would say, that on one side we have love, on other we have hate. I have seen some mariages crumbling and children/home/car trading in courts. And expecting only sunshine and buterflies in a relationship is a common error. I would even risk a theory that love is non existent, you have many other things in its place really, first its quickly dissipating sexual passion and fever, and after some time living together you can have mixed results. I would say its the major part of the marriages, but sometimes friendship can be first. Then as you know more about the other person, you can have friendship and affection to the death, or when things go bad, people don't stick to themselves b ecause they are so much different and are not accepting certain features in partner. Still they can live together like brother and sister that is hating eatch other.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2015-05-31 21:24:38 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Eurydia Vespasian wrote:
Tbh monogamy is mostly about trust. I don't like the the thought of a boyfriend being emotionally invested elsewhere. That's a betrayal of trust. We at imperfect creatures. Contradictory and territorial. I'm sure those are all survival mechanisms in some way. But I wouldn't worry overmuch about who a partner was with before you. Not really your business and nor is it theirs to question your history.

I don't know if being emotionally invested elsewhere is necessarily a betrayal of trust. Perceiving it to be that way doesn't mean it is so.

Nevertheless, I of course understand your point of view. I am in the same boat. I don't want a girlfriend who goes around being "emotionally invested" with other people because I think that it's gross and I refuse to take part in it. On the other hand I of course dislike it when good people are judged based on lifestyle choices that are harmless.

Speaking of trust betrayals, and speaking of nobody's business ... you say it is not my business who my partner was with before they were with me, and vice versa. Well I would have to agree. However, if you base your monogamous relationship on a foundation of trust, how could you ever trust someone who told you something was none of your business?

That is another phrase I've never liked. "None of your business". If it's none of my business why is it a secret? Don't you think that a relationship based on trust should have a philosophy of openness, of oneness, and devotion?

I'm not suggesting that people should find out all of the past lovers of their current partner. That would be ridiculous as well as pointless (not to mention it's none of your business). You also may not like what you find out about them if you do this. What I'm suggesting is simply that there is no point in being in a monogamous relationship between two people who have already had sex with other people. In this scenario, what is the point? Trust, is not a reason for me. You can't necessarily trust a virgin any more than you can trust an uberslut, even though you may think that you can.

Of course, you don't need a reason to love someone. They are the reason you love them. But if that's the case, why is there a need for monogamy in the first place? And why does there seem to be so much judgment in this world against people with different sexual preferences or lifestyles? It's all so confusing.

I feel like I'm running in circles here. I don't know if I'm making any sense or not, but I genuinely don't understand these things.

It seems like monogamy is about all that humans are able to handle, without going into drama overload and having extreme consequences. "The only two emotions that cannot be controlled are love and jealousy." -An 18th or 19th century French writer whose name I can't find or remember. It seems that cultures all around the world independently decided that having roving sexuality going on creates situations that are just too emotionally combustible. Too explosive for mom, dad, babies, dads, moms, grandmas and grandpas, and most of all-- neighbors.

It seems that sexuality is intimately related to love for humans.

Thinking of these concepts at the moment, I would say that true love is not bound by sexuality.

But if that were the case, I once again have to wonder why humans would be naturally monogamous? Perhaps the majority of humanity is simply disconnected from the reality of true love.

And even if true love were bound to sexuality, this once again makes me wonder why any human would choose a partner who has already lost their virginity. If sexuality and true love go hand in hand, then how could your true love be someone who has already been sexually active with other people?

The only answer that seems sensible to me is that you accept the fact that your partner has been with other people, and you love them regardless. But if you can accept the fact that your partner has had sex with other people it again makes me wonder why there is a need for monogamy in the first place because if you can accept the fact that they used to have sex with other people then you should be able to accept the fact that they may have sex with other people in the future, in which case monogamy would seem senseless.

I don't think love and sexuality go together. If they did, how could you possibly say that you love your mother, grandmother, father, sister, etc?

Now we must consider the incestuous side of love. Oh boy, here we go again.
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#38 - 2015-06-01 01:29:41 UTC
Those thoughts do go through the in-love person's head. Retroactive jealousy. What they may not know is, the partner's previous experiences may not have been anywhere the same as what's going on now. Anywhere along the spectrum, better or worse than this: 'The Jerk' - I found my special purpose.Smile

English has just one word/concept for "Love." A good language for explaining earthy and progressions of logic things. Not as good as some at easily expressing nuances of social interactions. Examples:
Eros (classical Greek) - Sexual energy (between two people).
Agape (classical Greek) - Love, as you'd feel for a dog, kitten, or your trusted circle.

Koi (Japanese) - Snuggling, cuddling, kissing, being under a blanket together, etc. Has sexual connotations, just because that's usually a part of the above.
Ai (Japanese) - Love for your dog, grandma, old husband become decrepit, old wife become senile, etc.

English has one word for love, those have two. Sanskrit probably has more, that's how that fine old language was.

Anyway, I think eros and agape, koi and ai are two different things. I'd bet a chart of the electromagnetic light-ups in the brain for the two would be pretty different. But over time with the same two people, the two might kind of converge.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2015-06-01 02:07:02 UTC
I think love and sexuality are very nearly diametrically opposed to one another. Love is when you care more about someone else than yourself in certain ways. When you would take time out of your day to make someone else happy even if they didn't do anything in return, just because you wanted them to be happy--that's love. Sexuality blinds us from love and makes us think about ourselves. We can even start to love someone and then act selfishly around them because of our sexual thoughts and feelings getting in the way of our love.

There are anecdotal examples of people loving each other and also being sexual with each other, but I think these are the exception, not the rule. It is much easier for me to believe that both are merely able to flourish in relationships between two people who both understand how to keep the two at least a little bit separate.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#40 - 2015-06-01 02:23:16 UTC
Eurydia Vespasian wrote:
...I also don't think the general population is "stupid" per say. Ill informed? Probably. ...
The number of people I have seen claim they won't get married and have children but now are ...

We make up a lot of rubbish to give our lives meaning but ultimately, in general, our base code drives us towards procreation or a placebo to that.
Humanity has not been under much environmental pressure to evolve and yet we have, rapidly, which is because we are evolving against each other, those that manipulate others more effectively have more children and those with solid genes have children that survive to perpetuate the cycle..

That is the summary of stacks of books.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Previous page123Next page