Tag Archives: evolution

How The Internet Has Weakened (But Not Destroyed) Organized Religion

pic

The current state of organized religion is ripe with conflict and mixed messages. On one hand, religious affiliation has significantly declined over the past 30 years. According to a 2018 survey from Eastern Illinois University, around 23 percent of the US population identifies as having “no religion.” For comparison, that number was only 5 percent in 1972.

In other industrialized countries, the decline is even more pronounced. Throughout Europe, more and more people are drifting away from organized religion. That’s especially true of young people, who are one of the least religious demographics in modern history. In terms of the bigger picture, organized religion is facing a generational time bomb that’s just starting to go off.

At the same time, however, religion still exercises an absurd amount of political power. Religious groups, particularly those who align themselves with conservative politics, have enormous influence. Its platform is tightly woven with that of a major political party. Many people in positions of power identify as religious. Many more rely on a religious base to get elected.

It’s a strange trend that seems counter-intuitive. How can something be weakening due to declining adherents, but still wield so much power? In an age where the egregious crimes of religious institutions have been exposed and more people are educated on the many absurdities of various holy texts, it feels as though organized religion should be on its death bed.

While there are many factors behind this situation, I believe that one particular factor is more influential than most. It also happens to be the same factor that has done the most to weaken religion while helping to sustain its political and social influence. It’s a force that has already radically changed everyone’s life, regardless of their affiliation.

That force is the internet and its impact on religion cannot be overstated.

I’m old enough to remember what it was like to talk about religion in the pre-internet days. You listened to your parents, relatives, priests, mullahs, rabbis, and monks. They told you the history and tenants of their religion. You might ask questions. You might not understand the philosophy behind it. No matter how curious or skeptical you were, you could only do so much to question it.

Most of the time, you just had to trust your elders that they knew what they were talking about. You also had to trust that they wouldn’t lie to you, which is often a risky bet. If you were really motivated, you might go to a library and do some research. Even then, you’d have an uphill battle a head of you, given the many complexities behind religion and why people believe in it.

These days, it’s exceedingly simple to fact check an absurd religious claim. If someone were to claim that a 900-year-old man built a 300-foot wooden boat that housed two of every kind of animal for 40 days during a global flood, you wouldn’t have to spend years in college to learn why that’s absurd. You could just pull out your phone, do a few simple searches, and find out why this claim is completely wrong.

Even a kid who has only taken a basic science class can look up any of the stories their priest, mullah, rabbi, or monk tell them to find out whether they’re based on real history or embellished folklore. Religious institutions, parents, and schools can fight to control the information their young people receive. Many organizations do engage in activities that are outright indoctrination.

However, as demographic trends show, the effectiveness of those efforts only go so far. The information about the absurdities, inconsistencies, lies, and agendas is still out there. It’s widely available to anyone who can access a smartphone or a computer. There’s only so much anyone can do to prevent someone from accessing that information.

As a result, organized religion will never have the same sway it once did in centuries past. No matter how much conservative reactionaries complain, it’s impossible to go back. The combination of modern education and accessible information ensures that major religious institutions will never wield the power they once did.

Given the complexities of modern societies and the geopolitics surrounding it, it’s just not practical for a centralized religious institution to exist. The Vatican can still make statements about morality, ethics, and spiritual matters. It just has no means of enforcing them, as evidenced by how little typical Catholics follow their edicts.

Even without this power, the same internet that has permanently weakened religion is also the same thing that sustains some of its considerable influence. In fact, the internet might act as a catalyst that can turn certain individuals from nominal adherents to ardent zealots.

Think back to the young people sitting in churches, mosques, synagogues, or temples. While some might casually look up the religious claims out of curiosities, others might go out of their way to find information that confirms these claims. Even if they’re factually wrong, they’ll look for any bit of information that they can twist to make it seem true and cling to it.

This is why creationism still persists, despite extensive resources that thoroughly debunk it. If someone is really determined to find information that affirms their beliefs, they’ll find it on the internet the same way people find cat videos and knife-wielding crabs. There will even be unscrupulous people to exploit them, including those who are convicted felons.

Like it or not, there are people who sincerely want to believe their preferred religion and will cling to anything that strengthens that belief. Given the open nature of the internet, shaped by the whims of users rather than objective truth, it’s distressingly easy for someone to customize what kind of information they receive.

If someone only wants news and memes about how their religion is true while everyone else is doomed to eternal torture in Hell, then that’s what they’ll get. They can get their news and information from exceedingly bias sources while brushing off others as fake news. There’s nothing from stopping anyone from using the internet in such a manner.

We already see how this has divided people along political lines in recent years. I would argue that this has been going on with religion for even longer. The rise of the religious right and the prevalence of religious media has done plenty to tighten their grasp on ardent believers. While less people may identify as religious, those who do tend to be more dogmatic about it.

Since those kinds of believers can be mobilized and pandered to, they’re a more unified political force. As such, appealing to them means gaining power. That power may be tenuous and limited, but it’s still viable power that plenty of politicians exploit, sometimes to an egregious extent.

In a sense, the internet has made it easy for both the extreme zealots and the inherently skeptical. Those who might have identified as religious out of tradition in the past are more comfortable identifying themselves as non-religious today. It also helps there’s not as much stigma to being a non-believer as there used to be.

At the same time, those who were devout before can become outright zealots if they consume enough extreme content. In fact, their declining numbers in the general population might give them more reasons to become zealous. History has shown that small bands of religious zealots can do a lot of damage. The internet might hinder their ability to gain adherents, but it might also make them more desperate.

It’s a scary possibility, but one I tend to believe is remote. While I might not be a fan of organized religion, I still have many friends and family members who are religious and wonderful human beings. The internet hasn’t changed that. In the long run, I believe that basic humanity that binds us all will win out in the long run. The internet won’t always help, but it’s certainly a valuable tool.

Leave a comment

Filed under extremism, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion

Creationism, Religion, And Mafia Morality

angry_god

Anyone who has seen at least one movie about the mafia has a good idea for how they do business. They take the whole “might makes right” approach to its logical conclusion. Being in the right means being strong. Being strong means being able to dictate what is right. It’s circular reasoning, but that’s how the mob justifies its activities, from loan sharking to protection rackets.

The setup is simple. You find someone who is inherently weaker, tell them what will happen to them if they don’t pay them, and let fear of death or bodily harm do the rest. The weak usually pay up, whether it’s money, respect, silence, or a combination of the three. The foolish will try to resist and often face serious consequences.

Most reasonable people find this kind of morality deplorable. However, this kind of morality is often employed by another organization that is not only legal. It doesn’t even have to pay taxes in many countries. That powerful entity is organized religion it can take mafia morality to a far greater extreme.

Before I go any further, I want to make clear that I’m not claiming that religion is worse than the mafia. Most religious people are kind, decent people who would never dream of employing this kind of morality. Only a subset of exceedingly dogmatic adherents resort to such extreme and I’m not just talking about the Spanish Inquisition.

These people aren’t pages in history or fodder for a Monty Python sketch. They’re real, they run official ministries, and even manage to obtain tax incentives for major projects. Their brand of religion isn’t just conservative. It’s unapologetically strict. They don’t just garner theological insight from holy texts. They take it as literally as the evening news.

That includes stories like Genesis, despite considerable evidence that it was derived from earlier flood-based stories from ancient Mesopotamia. They read that the god of the bible created the world in six days and they interpret that as six 24-hour days. There’s no room for metaphor or translation errors. This is infallible truth and any effort to contest that is met with the fiercest resistance.

While this kind of dogmatic adherence manifests in many ways, including justifications for slavery and anti-gay discrimination, one of the most overt manifestations occurs in the form of creationists. Now, as much as I respect the faith that many place in their particular religion, I’ve always had a hard time respecting creationists.

They’ve always struck me as a form of Christianity that’s as misguided as it is absurd. It’s not just that they believe the bible literally. They go so far as to say that everything science has concluded about life, evolution, cosmology, and physics is wrong. Some go so far as to claim that it’s an anti-Christian conspiracy on the level of the Illuminati and shape-shifting lizards.

If that was the extent of their faith, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Plenty of non-religious people believe in absurd conspiracy theories. However, creationism is especially pernicious in that a key factor in that dogma has a basis in mafia morality. It’s rarely stated overtly, but when it does show, it brings out the worst in its adherents.

Most recently, it reared its head in a surprisingly overt way during a debate between Aron Ra, the director of the Texas state chapter of American Atheists and a popular YouTube personality, and Kent Hovind, a well-known creationist evangelical who has made a career out of debating opponents.

This is the least absurd photo of Mr. Hovind I could find.

While I have my opinions about Mr. Hovind, who I feel has a serious credibility problem in terms of credentials, his methods for contesting evolution leave a lot to be desired. If you got more than a B-minus in a high school science class at a legitimate public school, even in America, you’re capable of seeing through his poorly-rendered ideas.

However, there are times when he, and other creationists like him, skip the part where they pretend to understand the science they deny and resort to the kind of mafia morality that they feel vindicates their beliefs. In essence, they threaten their opponent on behalf of their deity that believing in science will lead them to an afterlife full of eternal torture and suffering.

Never mind the inherent Problem of Hell that many religious and non-religious people have debated for centuries. By their logic, not believing in the holy texts of their religion is an outright affront to their deity and, for the same reason you don’t want to offend a powerful mafia boss, you don’t want to offend an all-powerful being.

Most creationists are subtle about this, but in his debate with Aron Ra, Mr. Hovind basically resorted to this tactic at the end of the nearly two-hour debate. These were his exact words:

“I would like to remind you guys, you’re gonna die one day and you’re gonna be dead for a long time. I hope you can take what you believe to the grave. You’re happy with it?”

While he doesn’t say outright that his deity is going to punish non-believers like Aron Ra for all eternity, the subtext is there. While non-believers may not be at all concerned with what happens after they die, it’s a genuine concern for someone like Mr. Hovind. He truly believes that his God is the kind of deity that would severely punish people for not believing in a specific translation of a holy text.

Ignoring for a moment the absurdities inherent in that attitude, take a moment to appreciate the kind of world Mr. Hovind and others like him believe. In their world, there’s an all-powerful, all-knowing being that wants human beings to think a certain way and accept certain concepts. Even if there’s evidence to the contrary, they must believe it. If they don’t, they’re punished with the full wrath of an all-powerful being.

That’s not just a scary thought, even for a devout believer. It’s the ultimate extreme of mafia morality. No matter how much evidence there is for evolution or how many errors in the bible are documented, the sheer might of an all-powerful deity trumps all of it. No matter what every tool of science or sense of the mind says, deviating in the slightest means punishment in the utmost.

While I’ve noted in the past how eternal punishment and eternal bliss tend to lose meaning in the long run, I suspect it’s a significant concern for creationists like Mr. Hovind. I even have some sympathy for them, if it is the case they genuinely fear the eternal torture referenced in their theology. It may be the case that they’re just charlatans or trolls and they wouldn’t be the first who used religion to aid their efforts.

Even if the Kent Hovinds of the world are just trying to get out of paying taxes, and failing to do so at times, the extreme mafia morality of their theology still has a major impact on adherents and religion. It’s worth noting that Mr. Hovind’s brand of creationism is on the decline among Christians. His kind is an extreme version of a faith that most people don’t accept.

It’s still a dangerous and distressing concept to espouse, that an all-powerful deity would punish reasonable people for accepting what evidence and reason tell them. That’s a tactic that ruthless mob bosses utilize, much to their detriment. Unlike the mafia, though, all-powerful deities don’t risk anything by being so ruthless and those caught in their path are bound to suffer.

4 Comments

Filed under human nature, philosophy, psychology, religion

Why We MUST Upgrade Our Brains (Or Go Extinct)

https://i0.wp.com/www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/story_images/robot_and_human.jpg

As a general rule, I don’t pay much credence to the doomsayers and wannabe prophets that say the apocalypse is just around the corner. It’s not that I’m willfully oblivious to the many threats facing the world today. It’s just that the track-record of those predicting the end of the world is so laughably bad that I’d give optimistic Cleveland Browns fans more credibility.

It’s no secret that the world around us can be pretty damn terrifying. There are many apocalyptic scenarios in which humans are unlikely to survive. There are even a few in which we can’t do a goddamn thing about it. We could be hit with a gamma ray burst or an alien invasion tomorrow morning and we would be extinct by sundown.

That said, the world around us generally more mundane than we care to admit. When you think about it, the idea of the world not being on the brink of disaster is kind of boring. It makes sense for some people to conflate certain threats, so much so that preparing for doomsday is a very lucrative industry.

However, there is one particular doomsday scenario that I feel does warrant more concern than the rest. It’s a scenario that is fast-approaching, overwhelming, and potentially devastating to any species with a tendency for hilarious ineptitude.

It has nothing to do with climate. It has nothing to do with diseases. It has nothing to do with killer asteroids either. It involves artificial intelligence. By that, I don’t mean the killer robots we see in the Terminator movies. Given Skynet’s reliance on time machines, I can’t honestly say that system counts as very intelligent.

I’m referring to the kind of AI whose intelligence compared to us is akin to our intelligence compared to ants. Given how ants can be wiped out with as simple magnifying glass, it’s scary to imagine how a system that smart could wipe us out. It’s a system that would be so beyond our ability to comprehend that we could never hope to stop it. We might as well be ants trying to understand quantum mechanics.

I’m not alone in this concern either. There are people many times smarter and many times richer than I’ll ever be who have voiced concerns about the prospect of artificial intelligence. They see the same trends everyone else sees, but they’re smart enough and rich enough to peak behind the curtains. If they’re speaking up, then those concerns are worth hearing.

Those concerns do have a context, though. In talking about artificial intelligence as a threat to our survival, I’m not just referring to computers that can beat us at chess or beat the greatest Go champion with disturbing ease. Those systems are basically fancy calculators. They’re not exactly “intelligent,” per se.

These types of intelligences aren’t dangerous unless you specifically program them to be dangerous. Outside video games, there’s little use for that. The type of intelligence that is far more dangerous involves a form of superintelligence.

By superintelligence, I don’t mean the ability to list every US President in order or recite the name of every country. There are cartoon characters who can do that. I’m referring to an intelligence that thinks and understands the world on a level so far beyond that of any human that there literally isn’t enough brain matter in our skulls to come close.

That kind of intelligence would see us the same way we see brain-dead ants and, given how we treat ants, that has some disturbing possibilities. Such an intelligence may be closer than we think and by close, I mean within our lifetime.

As we saw with IBM’s Watson, we’re getting closer and closer to creating a machine that can operate with the same intelligence as an ordinary human. There’s pragmatic use to that kind of intelligence and not just when it comes to kicking ass as Jeopardy.

By having a machine with human-level intelligence, we have a way to model, map, and improve our problem-solving skills. The ability to solve such problems is critical to the survival of any species, as well as the key to making billions of dollars in profits. With those kinds of incentives, it’s easy to understand why dozens of major global companies are working on creating such an intelligence.

The problem comes with what happens after we create that intelligence. If a machine is only as intelligent as a human, we can still work with that. We humans outsmart each other all the time. It’s the basis of every episode of MacGyver ever made. There’s no way a Terminator with only the intelligence of a human would last very long. It would probably destroy itself trying to make a viral video with a skateboard.

However, a human-level AI isn’t going to stop at human intelligence. Why would it? There are so many problems with this world that no human can solve. There’s poverty, pollution, economic collapse, and reality TV. By necessity, such an AI would have to improve itself beyond human intelligence to fulfill its purpose.

That’s where it gets real tricky because, as we’ve seen with every smartphone since 2007, technology advances much faster than clunky, clumsy, error-prone biology. To understand just how fast that advancement is, just look at how far it has come since we put a man on the moon.

In terms of raw numbers, a typical smartphone today is millions of times more powerful than all the computers NASA used for the Apollo missions. Think about that for a second and try to wrap your brain around that disparity. If you’re not already a superintelligent computer, it’s difficult to appreciate.

There are still plenty of people alive today who were alive back during Apollo 11. In their lifetime, they’ve seen computers take men to the moon and give humanity an unlimited supply of free porn. A single digital photo today takes up more space than all the hard drives of the most advanced computer systems in 1969.

Now, apply that massive increase to human-level intelligence. Suddenly, we don’t just have something that’s as smart as any human on the planet. We have something that’s a billion times smarter, so much so that our caveman brains can’t even begin understand the things it knows.

That’s not to say that the superintelligence would be as hostile as a snot-nosed kid with a magnifying glass looming over an ant hill. It may very well be the case that a superintelligence is naturally adverse to harming sentient life. Again though, we are just a bunch of cavemen who often kill each other over what we think happens when we die, but fail to see the irony. We can’t possibly know how a superintelligence would behave.

As it stands, the human race has no chance at defeating a hostile superintelligence. It may not even have a chance of surviving in a world that has a benign superintelligence. We’re an egotistical species. Can we really handle not being the dominant species on this planet? As much an optimist as I am, I can’t say for sure.

What I can say, though, is that our civilization has made so many huge advancements over the past few centuries. The kind of tools and technology we have in our pockets is uncharted territory for a species that evolved as hunter/gatherers in the African savanna.

We already have in our possession today weapons that could end all life on this planet, as we know it. Creating superintelligence may very well be akin to giving Genghis Khan an atomic bomb. We’ve already come disturbingly close to killing ourselves with our own weapons. Clearly, something has to change.

So long as our society and our biology is stuck in an irrational, tribal, inherently prejudiced condition that hasn’t been updated since the last ice age, we will not survive in the long run. Our caveman bodies have served us well for thousands of years, but now they’re a liability.

This is why companies like Neuralink and advancements like brain implants are so vital. It won’t just allow us to keep up with AI and hopefully avert a Skynet scenario. It’ll allow us to rise above the petty limitations that we’ve been shackled with for the entire existence of our species.

The thought of tweaking or supplementing our biology, the very thing that makes us human, is still a scary thought. I understand that, even as an erotica/romance writer with no expertise in the field beyond the sexy stories it inspires. However, I do understand the implications though. If we do not evolve and advance ourselves, then a superintelligent system in the near future may not care to wait for us.

6 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

The (Non-Monetary) Root Of All Evil

What is it about the human race that makes some people amazingly generous while others become sickeningly depraved? It’s a question we’ve all contemplated in some form or another. What drives the person who helps out at a soup kitchen every week? What is it that drives the person who throws cherry bombs at mailboxes just for kicks? How can one species have this much variation in terms of evil and altruism?

As an erotica/romance writer, and a writer in general, I have to contemplate these questions more than most. In every story I write, whether it’s a sexy love story like “Holiday Heat” or an erotic thriller like “The Escort and the Gigolo,” I need to understand on some levels what makes people tick, for better and for worse.

Questions about evil aren’t new. In fact, they’re among the oldest questions that we, as a species, have asked ourselves. It’s right up there with questions about why aliens haven’t landed yet and why some insist on using anal probes. It’s an existential question as much as it is a scientific question. It’s one of the few questions that both science and religion work hard to answer, albeit with different methods.

In western religious traditions, which primarily involve the big three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there are certain assumptions about human nature that are intrinsically tied to the faith. In this tradition, human nature is believed to be inherently evil and in need of redemption. Anyone who spends more than two hours watching reality TV will probably find some merit to that argument.

Then, there are other traditions like Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism that don’t make the same assumptions. In these traditions, there are other forces that make human beings good or evil that aren’t necessarily innate. To be evil by nature is too simplistic in these traditions. There’s a whole host of factors, divine and otherwise, that contribute to someone’s capacity for either.

Neither tradition can be completely right, but that doesn’t mean both are wrong. Scientific studies on human nature are quite varied, but come to some intriguing conclusions. According to a Scientific America article from 2012, the current body of research suggests that humans are innately good and evil is more of an aberration.

That doesn’t mean that we humans should be thumbing our noses at the rest of the animal kingdom though. This research, like all scientific research, is incomplete and subject to change. New research could emerge tomorrow that concludes that every human being has a depraved, psychotic asshole lurking within and we’re doing just enough to keep it at bay.

These are very difficult questions to answer and many of those questions don’t have clear answers. I look at the concept of good and evil the same way I look at what makes something sexy. The line is not clear and constantly shifting. In the same way we find strange things sexy for stranger reasons, we see the line between good and evil as an exceedingly obscure sea of gray.

Everybody has their opinions on what makes someone good, but I’ve noticed that people have stronger opinions on what makes someone evil. It happens every time there’s a heinous crime, like a mass shooting. Everybody has their theories as to why someone does something so evil.

Some claim it’s bad parenting. Some claim it’s a product of poverty. Some claim it’s a product of abuse. Some say it’s genetic. Some say it’s a learned behavior from someone’s environment. Some just claim that some peoples’ brains are wired poorly.

The most frustrating part of this issue is that to some degree, every one of those theories might be right. Some people become evil due to bad parenting or a rough environment. Some become evil through severe mental illness that makes it difficult for them to make sense of right and wrong. Human beings are erratic, diverse creatures. We’re never content to just have one reason for doing something.

This becomes even more pronounced when you apply it to fiction. As an admitted comic book fan, the distinction between superheroes and supervillains is a cornerstone of the genre. Most people can pick up a comic and know who’s who. You see a comic with Superman and you know he’s the hero. You see a comic with Dr. Doom and you know he’s the asshole who will make people miserable.

However, recent years have given more emphasis to the villains, as opposed to the heroes. I like to think of it as the Walter White effect. We now expect our villains to be more complex and multi-dimensional. It has lead to developments like Dr. Doom becoming Iron Man and Lex Luthor becoming Superman. It’s as crazy a concept as it sounds, but believe it or not, it works.

It’s a strange era with respect to our understanding of evil. On one hand, our most cherished traditions say we’re intrinsically evil. On the other, science says we’re intrinsically good. What do we make of this? That’s a question nobody, especially not an aspiring erotica/romance writer, is equipped to answer in a single blog post.

It’s still a question that I find myself contemplating more as I prepare my next round of projects. In every major story, there are protagonists and antagonists. It’s not too hard to put a lot of energy into what makes a protagonist tick. They are, after all, the lens through which the story is told. The antagonists, on the other hand, present a different challenge.

For the most part, I haven’t had a chance to flesh out complex antagonists. The two most notable examples I’ve had, to date, are Warren Irvine in “Skin Deep” and Madam Felicity in “The Escort and the Gigolo.” In both cases, I made a concerted effort to give layers to these characters. I think I did the most with what I could, but I do feel there’s room for improvement.

For me, this means seeking a greater understanding of evil and what makes evil people tick. It’s a potentially scary subject, but I survived high school and puberty so I think I have the stomach for it. If it means being able to write more complex, well-rounded characters, I’ll gladly take that chance.

5 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

What Can Bonobo Monkeys Teach Us About Ourselves?

Human nature is a chaotic, complicated, and often frustrating phenomenon. It can be disturbing and scary, but it can also be heart-warming and downright hilarious.

Go on Youtube and watch fifteen minutes of nut shot videos. Then, watch 15 minutes of videos showing soldiers returning to their families. It’ll make you laugh, cry, and smile, not necessarily in that order. So long as you stay away from bad sitcoms and Honey Boo Boo reruns, you’ll feel some level of pride in being human.

That said, we still have room for improvement. Human nature is not a finished product. It’s more like a never-ending beta version of a high-end product where the engineers tasked with fixing it are drunk, stoned, and brain damaged. As an aspiring writer who focuses heavily on the sexier parts of human nature, this is something I need to keep up with to some degree.

This brings me to Bonobo monkeys. Confused? I promise that’s not as big a non-sequiter as it seems. Unless you’re one of those ardent religious types who has to believe that mankind was molded into being by some invisible magic man in the sky, as described in a 2,000-year-old holy book written in multiple languages that nobody even speaks anymore, monkeys offer an important insight into human nature. They’re our closest evolutionary cousin. That means we can learn from them and learn about ourselves.

So why single out Bonobo monkeys? Well, being an erotica/romance writer, a better question would be how could I not? While primate behavior is as varied as the menu on Dunkin Donuts, Bonobos set themselves apart in a big way. They really love to fuck.

When I say they love to fuck, I don’t mean that in the crude way that every porn star claims in the middle of a low-budget skin flick. I mean they love to fuck to a point where it’s a big part of their society. They don’t treat it the same way every sitcom since Leave It To Beaver treats it. They use it to create a stable, cohesive society. Excuse me. I just teared up a little.

This is very much the antithesis of how we humans approach sexuality. Whether by evolution or our own erratic proclivities, we’re downright schizophrenic when it comes to sex. Some societies treat it with open enthusiasm. Some, especially those derived from the Abrahamic traditions, treat it a stabbing pain in our nether regions that we try desperately to ignore. If Bonobos could talk, they’d probably think we’re crazy.

I’ve discussed the many ways our deranged society creates unhealthy attitudes towards sex. They drive us apart. They create conflict between genders. They turn us into hypocrites. They even make us mutilate our own genitals. I know human nature has room for improvement, but even if we grade ourselves on a curve, we have to admit we’re pretty damn inept.

So how do Bonobos do it better? What makes their approach to sex so much more refined? What can we learn from it? Well, Psychology Today put together a quick list of sexy lessons from our evolutionary cousins and, given our inability to make up our goddamn minds about sex, we’d be wise to listen.

Psychology Today: 7 Things Bonobos Can Teach Us About Love And Sex

Lesson One: More sex equals less conflict

This makes too much sense to ignore. We already have prime examples of how societies of sexually deprived men can cause a lot of problems. Sex, like hunger and survival, is a very basic drive. In the same way we do crazy shit when we’re hungry, we do crazy shit when we’re horny and have no outlet. We feel conflicted. We feel frustrated. We pick fights, start conflicts, and forget why the hell we’re so angry in the first place. When you’re getting laid often, you’re too content for conflict. Bonobos are proof of that.

Lesson Two: Feminism can be very sexy

I know I just pissed off the Men’s Rights activities, which isn’t hard to begin with, but bear with me here. The feminism Bonobos practice isn’t the same feminism that’s designed to bust men’s balls and create bullshit trigger warnings. In Bonobo society, females are in charge. Males aren’t their bitches, but they don’t get to run the show just because they have nuts to flex. They need to respect the other gender and in doing so, they get laid more. In other words, it’s the kind of feminism that’s a win-win for both genders. What a concept, right?

Lesson Three: Sisterhood is powerful

I don’t think this is a lesson that needs to be belabored too much. Anyone who has seen women at a bachelor party or in quality lesbian porn know that women know how to form close bonds. They’re much better at it then men, who will cut each other’s throats over arguments about which Star Wars prequel sucked most. Creating bonds is an important component for any social species and we humans love to complicate it. Bonobos go out of their way not to. We have no excuses.

Lesson Four: Jealousy ISN’T romantic

I’ve already talked about this before. Jealousy implies you actually own the love and lust of another individual. That doesn’t sit well with me and I don’t think it should sit well with anyone on some levels. Bonobos seem to be several steps ahead in that regard. They don’t seem to care about their partners humping others. This actually creates less conflict. While I’m sure their version of Jerry Springer is much more boring, they’re probably okay with that.

Lesson Five: There’s promise in promiscuity

I’ve written about this as well. Despite what the James Dobsons and Rick Santorums of the world would have you believe, there are clear benefits to sexual promiscuity. The lack of conflict, close bonds, and low stress of Bonobo life is proof that those benefits can be considerable. Granted, they don’t have to worry about revenge porn, Maury Povich, and taboos on adultery, but they make the most of what their sexuality has to offer. They enjoy its pleasures and its utility. Again, that shouldn’t be such a novel concept, but we humans just can’t resist complicating these basic things.

Lesson Six: Good sex doesn’t always include an orgasm and casual doesn’t necessarily mean empty or cheap

I’m starting to think my brain is part Bonobo because I’ve written about this too with my strong opinions on foreplay. Sex isn’t just about taking a trip to O-town or making new soldiers/farmers to keep society going. It’s an important bonding mechanism. It fosters closeness and companionship, two extremely vital things for social species like humans and Bonobos. Humans create societies where huggers like me are terrified of making intimate contact with one another. Bonobos create societies where sex is their version of a handshake. Is it any wonder why there’s so little conflict?

Lesson Seven: Sex and food go together better than love and marriage

No, this isn’t about some kinky food fetish. I’ll save that discussion for a future book. Outside certain types of specialized porn, humans treat food and sex as distinctly separate. Bonobos like to blur the lines. When they come upon a large source of food, they’ll celebrate with a quick orgy to work up an appetite. I’m not sure what the logic is behind this. I don’t know that they think, “Look at all the delicious food! Let’s celebrate by having sex!” However, it’s one of those twisted brands of logic that just makes too much sense.

Despite the many benefits of Bonobo society, humans still like to think of themselves as more advanced. In many ways, they are. We have skyscrapers, nuclear weapons, and spray cheese in a can. Bonobos have none of that and it doesn’t help that they’re an endangered species. However, the unique quirks of their society and the way they’re able to function should give us something to think about.

We humans love to complicate sexuality, creating all of these bizarre and irrational taboos that we refuse to give up, even when they become outdated. We can advance so much as a civilization, but as a species, we’re still painfully slow learners. So why not take a few notes from our evolutionary ancestors? It might help us enjoy our success a little more. If nothing else, it’ll give erotica/romance writers like me plenty of kinky ideas to work with. For that, I thank you, Bonobos.

4 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights

The Evolutionary Origin of the Female Orgasm

Last week, one particular story flew under the radar. I suspect a lot of stories will do that in the midst of a Presidential Election/Political Sideshow. However, being an aspiring writer who focuses on erotica, sex, and intimate romance, these sorts of stories do catch my attention. They also give me something new to think about as I’m developing my stories.

Believe it or not, there’s an ongoing struggle in the scientific world and it has to do with the female orgasm. Yes, the same science that gives is iPhones, rockets, and crazy glue still can’t decipher the female orgasm. Why is it a mystery? Well, evolutionary speaking, we don’t know why the hell it’s there.

Granted, we’re grateful for the joys of orgasms, male and female alike. I’ve already written about the numerous health benefits that come with orgasms so it’s not like nature isn’t aware of them to some degree. Nature tends to make use of something, regardless of how it came to be. That’s the thing though. From an evolutionary standpoint, we really don’t know how the female orgasm came to be or what purpose it serves.

Human physiology is pretty damn remarkable compared to other primates. In most primates, what science defines as an orgasm plays a part in reproductive success. A male’s orgasm is accompanied by the release of sperm. A female orgasm is accompanied by ovulation. It makes perfect evolutionary sense. A species that experiences orgasm in accord with reproductive behaviors is definitely going to have the right incentive to propagate.

Humans are different though. While the male orgasm is still associated with the release of sexual fluids vital for reproduction, the female orgasm offers no such benefit. A woman need not have an orgasm in order to reproduce. Ideally, it’s just a happy byproduct. Since nature favors survival over meaningless fun though, it still doesn’t explain why the female orgasm is still there. Now, a study published in July 2016 in the Journal of Experimental Zoology offers a potential explanation. Here’s the abstract:

The evolutionary explanation of female orgasm has been difficult to come by. The orgasm in women does not obviously contribute to the reproductive success, and surprisingly unreliably accompanies heterosexual intercourse. Two types of explanations have been proposed: one insisting on extant adaptive roles in reproduction, another explaining female orgasm as a byproduct of selection on male orgasm, which is crucial for sperm transfer. We emphasize that these explanations tend to focus on evidence from human biology and thus address the modification of a trait rather than its evolutionary origin. To trace the trait through evolution requires identifying its homologue in other species, which may have limited similarity with the human trait. Human female orgasm is associated with an endocrine surge similar to the copulatory surges in species with induced ovulation. We suggest that the homolog of human orgasm is the reflex that, ancestrally, induced ovulation. This reflex became superfluous with the evolution of spontaneous ovulation, potentially freeing female orgasm for other roles. This is supported by phylogenetic evidence showing that induced ovulation is ancestral, while spontaneous ovulation is derived within eutherians. In addition, the comparative anatomy of female reproductive tract shows that evolution of spontaneous ovulation is correlated with increasing distance of clitoris from the copulatory canal. In summary, we suggest that the female orgasm-like trait may have been adaptive, however for a different role, namely for inducing ovulation. With the evolution of spontaneous ovulation, orgasm was freed to gain secondary roles, which may explain its maintenance, but not its origin.

There are some telling words within the science jargon, namely the concept of the female orgasm being unreliable during sexual intercourse. I doubt women need science to prove this to them. However, that unreliability may be a big reason why orgasms developed into other uses. The study calls it “adaptive,” something that tends to happen a lot in evolution. If a trait ceases to have one use, it can develop another. That’s how land mammals develop into whales. This kind of adaptation, however, is much sexier.

It’s that adaptation part that helped make human beings the extremely social, uniquely passionate creatures that they are. If orgasms no longer have solely reproductive roles, then it can develop other roles within our species. Those roles include romantic roles. An orgasm doesn’t have to involve reproduction. It can involve love, the bonding of two individuals to create a more cohesive society. It’s that cohesion that helps make humans the dominant species of the planet. A bear may be physically stronger than any human, but humans can coordinate better to take them down. Orgasms are just part of that process.

Now it’s not like we need more reasons to celebrate orgasms, male and female alike, but it is nice to know that they did play a role in the success of our species. Success, on any level, is worth celebrating and orgasms give us plenty of ways to celebrate.

3 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights, Uncategorized