Chinese government tells people what they can watch on TV

[Treesh]

Instead of looking at it as taking away intercourse from reproducing, try to look at it as taking reproduction away from intercourse. If we're doing a wiping of the slate here and choosing what goes and what stays, keep the intercourse but it'll just be for entertainment value. Who knows, without the religions that say it's evil and without having to worry about ending up with a child (although I'm assuming disease will still be a concern), people will stop being quite so repressed and really enjoy themselves. It could be a good thing. You just never know.

Interesting, so instead of viewing my prose as intrinsically negative as I concluded, you take an optimistic viewpoint on the subject. Please explain, preferrably the bolded parts, because I can only see negative. I consider myself an optimist, despite not believing in altruism or god, however I see human natures requirement of increasing power as necessary to our mental health and well-being. It is our drive, and that concept has been capitalized in many science fiction shows. In summation, take away all the little things that give us survival (which we've grown to enjoy), and you are left with self-absorbed, power-hungry fiends.

This is basically some thoughts in the making here, so bear with me. Even with writing some of this out by hand earlier to get my own thoughts straighter, it's still a work in progress. I have the feeling y'all will get to see my thought processes forming here rather than me trying to convince anyone of anything. Aren't you lucky?

You say that human nature has a requirement of increasing power as being necessary to our mental health and well-being, but this current requirement is really only because of the struggle for survival. You've removed that struggle in your scenario, so that requirement should be gone as well. I really do wonder how the chemical reactions in the brain would be altered though. I'm assuming we would still have the pain reactions to keep us safe from environmental factors, but how would the pleasure reactions change? Would we still have them? Some, like the taste and smell of food, are survival based, but some aren't. If we keep the pleasure reactions, I can see us becoming more self-absorbed, but definitely not power hungry unless we just have our brain chemistry set up to give pleasurable reactions to gaining something that really has no place, no purpose. Since I just cannot conceive of me EVER wanting power just for the sake of power, in any scenario, I simply just don't think we would default to that. We'd all be the same so we'd all have to have our pleasure centers wired the same way and I just cannot even fathom me being power hungry so maybe that's part of why I can dismiss that part of your negative outcome so easily.

As to the lack of repression, a lot of the current and previous views on sex, and indeed, anything pleasurable to the mortal realm, has come about because of religion trying to explain STDs before germ theory was generally accepted, also the lack of hygiene and lack of paternity testing.

Sex is a sin! You have sex with more than one person, you get some very obvious, nasty symptoms that only seem to happen to anyone when they've had sex with more than one person, that means the Head Deity is punishing you for bad behavior. But now we can say it's because of diseases rather than an angry deity so you just protect against diseases and go have your fun!

A woman has to be faithful and pure to her husband. A woman always knows if the child in her womb is actually hers or not (before science introduced embryo transfers of course). A man doesn't know if the child is his or not (before paternity testing) and resources are scarce. Why waste resources on someone not in his bloodline?

Sex is dirty! Well, yeah, if no one bathes or brushes their teeth, there is definitely that, although this really doesn't fall under a religious issue, but around the same time as the religious ideas were being put into place, this was common so I'm lumping it in here regardless.

Without religion telling us sex is bad, wrong, and should be done only out of necessity to continue the species, people are more free to say, "Hey, this is really fun!" without having to feel so ashamed of feeling pleasure.

Oh, I forgot to mention some religions/sects/cults/whatever also denouncing that any pleasure in the mortal realm will cause trouble in the afterlife, but I'll have to go digging to remind myself just which ones those were before I can really get into that part of it. I know there was more that I was going to say, but between brain and pen/paper and brain and computer, it got lost. I'm sure it'll find its way home eventually and it'll come up in another post somewhere.

Edit: This scenario you've set up just intrigues me for some reason. You say we're all the same so that means body chemistry, brain chemistry and I really, really wonder just how that would affect music and paintings and writings. How much does just the struggle to survive impact the arts and our thoughts, ideals, morals? Thanks MEAT! =)

Edit2: Many people over the years have said that the only purpose to art is to woo women, to make yourselves stand out. If we are all the same, with asexual cloning going on, would we still feel the need to make art, in all its forms, to make ourselves heard, make ourselves be different? Would the need to make ourselves seem different become even more important? If you set all the biology identical and wipe religion, it really would be a case of nature vs nuture and I really wonder how that would pan out. It's just so foreign to me to think of everyone's chemistry reacting the same way. Would everyone feel the same level of fear, that exact same flood of chemicals? It'd even the field for sports and it really would come down to strategy and tactics and have nothing about the physical prowess of one team/person over another. Would that make it more or less interesting to watch?

Edit3: With everything being the same and all of our survival needs taken care of, including protection from the environment trying to kill us off, would that actually expand the arts instead? We wouldn't have to work if the needs were just all magically taken care of so we'd have nothing but free time. Even if we completely erased religion, complete blank slate, would we end up creating religions again? And just how would the different climates affect our world views? Even if the people are all the same, the world still has the environmental differences. It would be an actual nature vs nurture experiment, but how much would the nurturing actually differ between folks in a similar climates?

Yes, I know. I'm putting way too much thought into how such an impossible scenario would actually play out. I know it's just mental masturbation, but I never said there was anything wrong with that! =)

[kandrathe]

...

After a bit of study on Communism today, I think in a fully Communist society, everyone must watch the same things at the time to promote total equality.

Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.

“From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

In a true Communist society, there is no government. Only a ruling party to establish guidelines and enforce equality.

"enforce equality" <> "free from oppression"

Oppress: put down by force or intimidation.

Enforce: [Middle English enforcen, from Old French enforcier, to exert force, compel, and from enforcir, to strengthen : en-, causative pref.; see en-1 + force, strength; see force.]

The false premise is that people are equal in skill, and that they contribute equal effort. We can strive to create equal opportunities, but unequal reward are inevitable due to unequal efforts, unequal comforts in risk taking, and the unequal valuation of a persons skills.

In the US, from the constitutional perspective we should be treated equal in the application of law, but that does not make us equal.

[kandrathe]

Vampire bats will share blood with bats that don't have any.

I will share my ramen noodles with other hungry humans that don't have any.

I believe human altruism arose as a commensal strategy. As a cave man, I can't defend my family from predators as well alone. In a group, working together, we do better. If I'm only self interested, I might ensure I'm the sole survivor, but not for long. If I'm altruistic, I can help to ensure the survival of my tribe, and then they will better ensure the survival of me and my progeny.

Altruism is the price we pay for the benefits of society.

[kandrathe]

Who knows, without the religions that say it's evil...

Just to step in and be the one to defend religion, just a little bit...

My interpretation, and one fairly widespread in most religions is that intercourse is not evil/sinful, and that sexuality is God given. Technically, sin is that which separates one from divinity. The confusion in modern Christianity (and for fundamentalists) is mostly due to the inclusion of the Old Testament (as a reference). The Judaic law proscribed certain sexual behaviors, as a result it has been tradition that has propagated these laws to the present. Adultery/Fornication are not really laws merely about sex, they are laws regarding the sanctity of marriage. Christianity, as defined by Paul, in essence has done away with these laws.

Marriage, as verified by religious authority, is the traditional societal requirement for copulation. It was observed by the society (being more theocratic) at that time more strictly as a means for providing social harmony. Copulation between unmarried people, or outside of marriage results in civil strife. The strife could be from harmed marriages, or from pregnancies for unmarried women.

Notice I said "verified". In the religious perspective, it is God that sanctifies marriage, not people. Two people who commit themselves to each other ( before God) are married. The wedding is a ceremony to share/celebrate the God given union with the community. This is why I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage, or with attempting to enforce sexual morality.

So, the bottom line would be then, that it would be "sinful" to engage in any act that causes strife in the community, or harm to others. It would be sinful to play the stereo annoyingly loud, be an obnoxious drunk, maliciously fire tear gas canisters to explode on fallen protesters or be a jerk racing in traffic. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. I believe a proper understanding of Christianity is not in "sin management", but rather seeking a state of grace. Focusing only on sin and penance results in shame, and ultimately more sin.

In our modern society, with our knowledge of protective measures, and with mutual adult consent, copulation is not sinning when approached from the perspective of grace.

And... my off topic musings... I commented earlier on a different thread that the ancient Semitic cultures were not monogamous. The women owned the tents, and men would marry as many wives as they could care for (providing food and money to the tent).

My wife and I recently watched Lisa Ling visiting a traditional Mormon family where the original couple married when they were 18, then 5 years later they added another wife, and 3 years later another wife. It was interesting to see Lisa deal with societal concepts that the Mormon men and women had been comfortable with their whole lives. They were raised in happy plural households, and had dozens of brothers and sisters, and a group of loving caregivers to nurture them. Often these people are targeted and prosecuted for felony bigamy.

We have a long way to go in the US in being an open minded and free society. Whether that comes from oppressive religious interpretations imposing "correctness", or from oppressive government seeking to control our thoughts and our private lives.

[eppie]

Sorry Eppie, but I'ma have to part with you on this one. Yes, there is a lot of bullshit and mindless crap on TV that promotes ignorance. But no government or otherwise has a right to force private citizens what they can or cannot watch in their own home (exception: child pornography, which must be forbidden anywhere). It is up to the people to decide what is good to watch and what isnt. This is why critical and free thinking is so important, so that people can differentiate between propaganda and reality. But censoring what they can or cannot watch, especially in the privacy of their own home, is not the solution.

At Jester/FIT/Shoju:

Ok but what is finally the difference with the FCC (or whoever does this) that decides that a certain movie or TV show can only be seen when you are over 12, 15 or 18 years old?
Why does the government in Europe and the US (and I guess Canada as well) tell us that movies containing too much sex can't be shown before 10 o'clock?
Why do they find it necessary to use beeps every time someone swears in a song or music video? (I mean did you ever see or hear up in here by DMX??)
Or the use of a vague spot to hide when someone shows his or her breast/ but or reproductive organ?

I rather get rid of all the realities and instead be able to watch my music video's uncensored by the conservatives that think 1: I don't know what the artist says and 2: I might get mentally injured when I hear what he says.

[Jester]

Ok but what is finally the difference with the FCC (or whoever does this) that decides that a certain movie or TV show can only be seen when you are over 12, 15 or 18 years old?
Why does the government in Europe and the US (and I guess Canada as well) tell us that movies containing too much sex can't be shown before 10 o'clock?
Why do they find it necessary to use beeps every time someone swears in a song or music video? (I mean did you ever see or hear up in here by DMX??)
Or the use of a vague spot to hide when someone shows his or her breast/ but or reproductive organ?

I rather get rid of all the realities and instead be able to watch my music video's uncensored by the conservatives that think 1: I don't know what the artist says and 2: I might get mentally injured when I hear what he says.

I'm not sure what I'm responding to here. I don't believe in censorship. Governments all over the world try it all the time, which is why I phrased my comment to *anyone* who wants to tell me what I can and can't watch, or say.

There is some incrementally higher boundary for young children than adults. But I think we draw the line far too quickly and too strongly, out of the (mistaken, IMO) impression that this is somehow protecting kids from something or another.

-Jester

[Treesh]

Who knows, without the religions that say it's evil...

Just to step in and be the one to defend religion, just a little bit...

My interpretation, and one fairly widespread in most religions is that intercourse is not evil/sinful, and that sexuality is God given.

Depends on what denomination you are Kan and how repressed your preacher/pastor/priest/etc is. There are still sects out there that believe this. There are still a lot of folks, especially around where I live, who believe this to this day. It still gets preached. I'm glad your interpretation isn't as narrow, but it's still fairly widespread in areas.

[kandrathe]

Ok but what is finally the difference with the FCC (or whoever does this) that decides that a certain movie or TV show can only be seen when you are over 12, 15 or 18 years old?

No difference. In the olden days, there were only open broadcast channels. Now, with digital channels you need an encoder/decoder, which also allows one to send meta-data on the shows content, and allow the viewer to set "parental controls".

You are right that the government censors have little reason to exist anymore. And, it is ridiculous for them to fine someone for Janet Jackson's 2 second supposed wardrobe malfunction. When I saw it live, I wasn't even sure what happened.

The Chinese officials are afraid that people will begin to model behaviors they see outside of China. They are worried about moral corruption, or that the people will begin to slip their yokes and question authorities.

---

Depends on what denomination you are Kan and how repressed your preacher/pastor/priest/etc is. There are still sects out there that believe this. There are still a lot of folks, especially around where I live, who believe this to this day. It still gets preached. I'm glad your interpretation isn't as narrow, but it's still fairly widespread in areas.

You are certainly correct, and unfortunately it's that type of "Christian" that drives people away. No one likes, or needs more shaming and guilt trips in their life.

[DeeBye]

And, it is ridiculous for them to fine someone for Janet Jackson's 2 second supposed wardrobe malfunction. When I saw it live, I wasn't even sure what happened.

LL flashback.

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/thread-9363.html

[LavCat]

And, it is ridiculous for them to fine someone for Janet Jackson's 2 second supposed wardrobe malfunction. When I saw it live, I wasn't even sure what happened.

LL flashback.

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/thread-9363.html

I'm with Duckula on that.

[kandrathe]

And, it is ridiculous for them to fine someone for Janet Jackson's 2 second supposed wardrobe malfunction. When I saw it live, I wasn't even sure what happened.

LL flashback.

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/thread-9363.html

I'm with Duckula on that.

And, even after 8 years, only a professional LaCrosse team, the Boston Blazers, dared my suggestion of having strippers on the sidelines...

"A local radio disc jockey emceed the first of a reported season-long lap dance contest at the indoor lacrosse team’s home opener Saturday night. The Blazers’ mascot, Scorch, seated himself near midfield while three contenders took turns performing raunchy one-on-one routines.

The women, who reportedly were not affiliated with the team, did not actually remove their clothes, but fans complained the antics simulated the sort of moves commonly associated with strippers. Angry fans vented on the team’s Facebook page following the game, with one calling the halftime act “an absolute disgrace to the Blazers.”

[Taem]

This is by far one of the coolest things I've read on these boards to date. Thank's Treesh!

I really do wonder how the chemical reactions in the brain would be altered though.

I wonder if we would evolve to a state where other "things" became important to us, and our brains coped by creating a "desire" for said objectives. Interesting.

Since I just cannot conceive of me EVER wanting power just for the sake of power, in any scenario, I simply just don't think we would default to that.

I did not account for this in my daydream whatsoever. I had just felt everyone feels this way, which is why people play video-games, so they can gain power over something in the game world - from clothing to money to magic, in all games, you start off equal, and amas power and/or win in some, thus the true nature of "games" is exposed. Perhaps you play games purely for the social aspect, something I hadn't considered. My wife is like that; not a power-hungry bone in her body, always wanting to go with the crowd, but still has her own opinion.

[sex]...

Yes, I agree that in our initial stages of development with this new way of living, it would be sexual debauchery to the extreme, because really, what else would there be? But after eons of evolution, I doubt this would be a concern. Focus would shift as our brains adapted (see my first reply in this post) and other objectives would become meaningful in the way food, taste, and sex are now to us.

I really, really wonder just how that would affect music and paintings and writings. How much does just the struggle to survive impact the arts and our thoughts, ideals, morals?

Wow, this is getting deep. Alright, I imagine as our brains evolved, these things might become intrinstic to our very natures, that art might evolve into what we do, how we express ourselves, what we become. Energy patterns, light, thoughts. Even the way we record media would surly be altered in this alter-reality.

it really would be a case of nature vs nuture and I really wonder how that would pan out.

Ahh, I see your drawing the same conclusion I am. Obviously, I'm responding too you as I read what you wrote FYI.

It's just so foreign to me to think of everyone's chemistry reacting the same way. Would everyone feel the same level of fear, that exact same flood of chemicals? It'd even the field for sports and it really would come down to strategy and tactics and have nothing about the physical prowess of one team/person over another. Would that make it more or less interesting to watch?

Ahh yes, sports. Interesting indeed.

With everything being the same and all of our survival needs taken care of, including protection from the environment trying to kill us off, would that actually expand the arts instead? We wouldn't have to work if the needs were just all magically taken care of so we'd have nothing but free time. Even if we completely erased religion, complete blank slate, would we end up creating religions again? And just how would the different climates affect our world views? Even if the people are all the same, the world still has the environmental differences. It would be an actual nature vs nurture experiment, but how much would the nurturing actually differ between folks in a similar climates?

Again, I think our brains would evolve and find meaning in new objectives, and a chemical reaction in our brain would occur to give us pleasure from these objectives. What they would be, I have no idea - I can't even "imagine" to be honest.

[Treesh]

I wonder if we would evolve to a state where other "things" became important to us, and our brains coped by creating a "desire" for said objectives. Interesting.

You mention evolving, but really evolution comes about because of all those little mistakes that crop up during reproduction. There are still errors that crop up in just regular cellular reproduction on a day to day basis, but there's not as much opportunity for real change there since you aren't adding in new DNA for the possibilities of really new "features", so evolution would change as well. Probably just slower, not as drastic.

Since I just cannot conceive of me EVER wanting power just for the sake of power, in any scenario, I simply just don't think we would default to that.

I did not account for this in my daydream whatsoever. I had just felt everyone feels this way, which is why people play video-games, so they can gain power over something in the game world - from clothing to money to magic, in all games, you start off equal, and amas power and/or win in some, thus the true nature of "games" is exposed. Perhaps you play games purely for the social aspect, something I hadn't considered. My wife is like that; not a power-hungry bone in her body, always wanting to go with the crowd, but still has her own opinion.

I generally play games just to see what happens, how things develop. I play games the same way I live my life. The old corny line of "Life is a journey, not a destination" basically sums things up for me. I really don't care if there's an Ultimate Meaning or an Ultimate End State. I happen to think there isn't one besides maybe propagation of the species, and even that really doesn't seem like an ultimate purpose to me. I just like seeing what's around the corner, what happens next. Although, currently, I do have a toon in RIFT who I'm having a complete blast with because she's a total monster when it comes to destroying AI-controlled enemies, but she still gets whomped in PvP right now because I'm just not really a PvPer at heart. I don't have to have the best gear, the best spec. I'm just putting in time before the end so I may as well enjoy what I have while I still can. =)

Edit: In WoW I do remember always striving for better gear for Mogo, striving to be better, but that was just to make sure that I had enough power to get the job done and I considered "the job" to be making sure that the folks in the guild had the opportunities to achieve all the things they wanted to do. It's why I would farm for other people, but wouldn't for myself. It's why I would, if I was online, jump to go help folks trying to get achievements they couldn't do alone. So, my quest for power was really to just have enough power to get the job done. That's probably where my skill-less amazon and naked trap assassin got their start - just how much power do you really need to finish the game? How much do you need in life before you're actually happy? It's the same thing to me which is probably why I'm happy just living off of $800 a month (cheap cost of living down here =D ). I've got what I need so there's no big reason, no big push to get more, although I do always -want- things like new computer parts, new games, etc. but they are still just a want so it doesn't bug me if I have to wait for it. /edit

[sex]...

Yes, I agree that in our initial stages of development with this new way of living, it would be sexual debauchery to the extreme, because really, what else would there be? But after eons of evolution, I doubt this would be a concern. Focus would shift as our brains adapted (see my first reply in this post) and other objectives would become meaningful in the way food, taste, and sex are now to us.

Debauchery has negative connotations with it. *wags her finger*

What's the difference between enjoying sex and enjoying sports or other physical activities? Folks enjoy working out or playing pick up games with their buddies, but they don't (usually) go so far as to do it to the exclusion of everything else. Why wouldn't sex end up being the same way? Although really, all the other changes grab my imagination more than the sex part. I just thought it interesting that non-sexual reproduction equates to doing away with the physical act itself completely for some people. Then again, maybe I'm just a "pervert" at heart.

I really, really wonder just how that would affect music and paintings and writings. How much does just the struggle to survive impact the arts and our thoughts, ideals, morals?

Wow, this is getting deep. Alright, I imagine as our brains evolved, these things might become intrinstic to our very natures, that art might evolve into what we do, how we express ourselves, what we become. Energy patterns, light, thoughts. Even the way we record media would surly be altered in this alter-reality.

I immediately thought of a Metalocalypse episode where they record their music onto water instead of the regular media. =)

I do find it interesting that you still see evolution occurring on the same scale as it does now, although maybe I'm just inferring that you think it would be on the same scale. The critters that asexually reproduce really haven't evolved much because the mechanism for evolution doesn't have as many opportunities to come up with new combinations so I don't know just how much things would change after the magical slate cleaning occurs.

Edit2: Here's an interesting read that rather fits in with this discussion on human behavior once we get everyone with the same biological start. Parasites that affect the brain chemistry could be a noticeable influence if there was a wide enough infestation. Buddy of mine showed me this link and it just fit into this conversation so well. =)