> Rich Artym writes:
> >>Actually, nothing that's hormone-driven makes much sense and is free of
> confusion.
>
> You mean that's what held up DHEA research? ; -P
>
> <We have our work cut out trying to transcend it all though,
> because the first step down that path is to have the will to do it, and
> there isn't much of that about when it comes to things that are as fun
> and as addictive as sex.>
>
> Do we need to follow the monks and spocks and
> assume (probable origins religion based guilt
> meme) the path to transcending the limits of sexual
> addictions would be the abolition of sexuality?
> How about intergrating it more successfullly into a
> process that is beneficial for optimal living.
To repeat it for the umpteenth time: there is nothing intrinsically holy
or beautiful in the act of sex. It's in the eye of the observer, entirely.
Sex is an artefact of evolution, tailored to fulfill its range of tasks
(mostly, autoreplication) it was designed to do. Period.
Once the entire background situation changes qualitatively, sex is obsolete.
Trying to perpetuate sex, particularly to drag along sex in an upload
mind ecology all the way up to Omega, is, sorry to say it, simply
ludicrous.
(Caveat: An upload universe, unless unlimited-resource, will have
darwinian evolution, will have death, and ergo, probably autoreplication.
If the entire persona bandwidth is present, from the virus to god
equivalent, some species will probably have some coitus procedure (unless
there are no distinct personae, nor timespace as we know it, that is)).
'gene
> N