HOME

Why young adults can favor anti-sexual religions

Every person, beginning with puberty but continuing for some time thereafter, makes up his (and grammatically, this includes "her") mind as to what he is living for. Most people decide this rather consciously early in life, and then stay the course.

They may decide that they live for, and in the sense of, a religion. Or they decide in favor of another ideology or philosophy. They decide consciously in as they are largely aware of when, and under what circumstances, they knowingly decided for a certain "sense" for their lives.

But they are not aware of why they decided for a certain religion, ideology, or philosophy.

The point is: people largely make decisions on their "sense" in life based on their desire to be accepted members in their communities. For young people, it is of utmost importance to be regarded as "good quality" among their peers, as their mating chances depend on this. And during puberty and in the years thereafter, mating chances are the one thing that counts most in life.

Make no mistake: young people can even adopt religions, ideologies, and philosophies which have the immediate effect of denying them mating chances. They do this if adherence to such religions, ideologies, and philosophies earns them high respect in their communities. And they may decide for sexually restrictive religions, ideologies, or philosophies because in most cases, the denial of mating chances is not 100 percent, and adherence to such a sexually restrictive religion, ideology, or philosophy will eventually be rewarded with at least a limited mating opportunity (which is better than none).

It's often but a trade off: forego mating chances in the short term, and thereby earn respect within your community. If you are well-respected (for your abstention), then your market value will rise, and your mating chances later on will be better.

Anyway you turn it, the only thing that really counts, for young people and also later in life, are mating opportunities. If the awareness of this connection between esoteric decisions and biological drives is generally improved, more people, especially young people, hopefully decide for the direct route (sexual liberation), rather than the indirect route (conforming to religious, ideological, or philosophical trends in order to improve their market value, and later being rewarded with mating chances).

I don’t agree with Chinese policies in every detail. But this is beside the point.

China’s political and economic success is crucial for two very important reasons:

1. atheistic government

2. government by a dedicated elite, organized as a single state party

Any genuine social progress in the world cannot accommodate religions. I am convinced that sooner or later, religions will vanish anyway. That they disappear sooner rather than later is greatly in the interest of those with enough self-cognition to realize the fundamental foolishness of religions.

Since the times of Socrates, it is an established political theory that government should be an enlightened elite, and not by those who represent the sentiments of a majority of people that can easily be misguided by inciting negative emotions such as hatred and envy.

Plato calls the enlightened elite an aristocracy (which simply means “rule by the best”). The term today is associated with hereditary nobility, so Plato’s term is today better translated as “enlightened elite”.

Book VIII of Plato’s Republic
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html

On Plato’s Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

Interestingly, while Plato (and Socrates) considered rule by an enlightened elite (aristocracy) the best form of government, democracy ranked only fourth among five forms. Plato’s ranking, from best to worst, is:

1. aristocracy (rule by an intellectual elite, not a hereditary nobility)

2. timocracy (rule by “guardians”, a dedicated military junta)

3. oligarchy (rule by the rich)

4. democracy (rule by demagogues who address the sentiments of the uneducated)

5. tyranny (rule by a whimsical dictator)

The ideal city
http://www.scottlondon.com/articles/idealcity.html

While in earlier times, there rarely existed intellectual elites (qualified by a substantial degree of self-cognition), there were also fewer obstacles to their rule (in the form of a mass media that can incite negative emotions and allow populists (“demagogues” in Plato’s words) to ride on them).

I have no influence on Chinese politics. But I do sense that the Chinese government is aware of the fact that the competition is not just between the Chinese economy and the US economy. The competition is between two entirely different political systems. I also assume that the Chinese government has enough understanding of the dialectical course of history to know that the two political systems cannot coexist for ever. Sooner or later, there must be a winner.

And if the winner is the US political system, as it has been in the Cold War competition between the US and the Soviet Union, then it’s not just that China will be the loser with respect to the prevailing political system. China will then also become a second-rate political power, in the same manner as Russia became a second-rate political power after the defeat of the political system of the Soviet Union.

History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)
http://experts.about.com/e/h/hi/history_of_the_soviet_union_(1985-1991).htm

The Chinese leadership, I assume, is aware of this, and this awareness speaks out of many international Chinese policies. No other country, apart from the US, is as active as China in forming international alliances, especially in Latin America and Africa. And while China outcompetes practically all Third World countries in attracting Western investment, it is China that provides benevolent investment in Third World countries, even in infrastructure projects that are of very little interest to Western investors who always eye a short-term profit.

China's Courtship of Brazil and LatAm Makes Washington See Red
http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9388/79/

China’s Rising Role in Africa
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8436/

China rising: A 21st century powerhouse
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12161566.htm

Unlike the US, China attaches practically no strings to its economic cooperation, which is why there is a high and rising level of sympathy for the Chinese involvement in other countries.

Hopefully, this will be followed by a realization in other countries that the Chinese political model, too, is worthwhile to be adopted. If one searches diligently enough, one does find indications that such an export of political structures has started. Just one example:

China, Tanzania Vow to Boost Cooperation on Anti-corruption
http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/185966.htm

Some critics think I am anti women. This is of course total and absolute quatsch.

If anything, than I am anti men.

My favorite omni-potency imagination is to be the ruler of an island. No men there, except for me. I love to imagine women in every position. No, not in bed, but as managers, physicians, architects, and bankers.

Even in a modern society, I would happily go with a sex distribution of 95 % women and 5 % men. I grant that we need some men, as construction workers, or in other jobs where physical strength is required. The fewer the better.

I am no Kantian fool. While I am a man, and while I want the best for me, the conclusion that I would want the best for all men is a medieval philosophical fallacy.

This doesn't mean, that I wouldn't recognize the benefits of solidarity among men. Even though I may enjoy fantasies of societies with no other men, or just a limited number of other men, I realize that my chances of ever living in such a society are so slim, that I will do absolutely nothing to pursue it.

On the other hand, I can reap in some tangible benefit for me from acting in solidarity with other men and women, even though I am aware that other men are my competitors, and even though I am aware of the fact that women usually have sexual strategies quite different from those of men.

As an activist, I do not seek solidarity for my sexual lifestyle. Yes, my sexual lifestyle is elitist. I am aware that such a lifestyle is available only for a relatively small number of men.

I am also aware that my sexual lifestyle is contrary to what most women would want it to be, even those women who tell me that they love me.

I am an activist for men's rights, but I do not preach my lifestyle to others. I am aware that it cannot be implemented on a general scale.

But even more than for men's rights, I am an activist for personal freedom, especially in sexual matters. And on that level, I'd like to be part of a large coalition. Like everybody else, I wish to be as unrestricted as possible in pursuing happiness.

But personal freedom needs personal safety to be enjoyable. This is why my advocacy for personal freedom, and non-interference of the state in private, especially sexual matters, does not mean that I would preach the absence of states in future societies, or even just weak government (which would result in nothing but mafias lording it over).

To the contrary, the best guarantor of the personal freedom of the members of a society is strong government by a political party with a strong ideological commitment to the personal freedom of the citizens of a state. Such a strong government could even be proactive towards the optimal sexual satisfaction of the members of a society, and even concern itself with matters such as assuring as gentle a death for as many of a country's citizens as ever possible.

However, Western-style democracy, in which those who want to get elected preferably play to the sentiments of hate and jealousy of those who vote, will unlikely lead to a society with a strong government, which is benevolent in matters of personal freedom.

**********

http://www.asiatour.com/directions.htm
Jan Garanoz
Juhu Tara Road, Juhu,
Mumbai - 400049 India
Last updated: February 16, 2010