Secondly, I do not believe you are looking into this deeply enough. It is important to realize, firstly, that there is already a huge stem of contempt between the working classes and the rich classes, sprouting from two things: Unequal opportunity and unequal value. If we were to educate everyone, it would relieve the contempt sprouting from unequal opportunity, at least as much as it can possibly be, and, more importantly, would help to increase the value of those who feel contempt because they believe there is an unequal value between them and their societal or economical superiors.

If the masses were more well educated, it would also allow them to realize certain things about their government: That we are given the duty, as a people, to abolish an unjust government, or to fix it (if this is possible), as long as this is not caused by malicious intent or trivial losses.

If a people were to be educated more in all around subjects, then it would help the masses to discern certain ideas from certain writings; it would allow them to tell whether they are being cheated by their government and allow them to look more toward the future of political America. The people would look around and see an unjust system, if there was one, and try and abolish the system that is unjust.

Moreover, I think that there is something you seem to be referencing from brave new World. the World Controller states, very briefly, that they had tried to put a group of Alphas on an island together and had sought to find what would happen. Soon, the people went through several wars and rebellions and eventually wanted to have a system initiated. This points to your belief, that people should not all be educated to the same point.

But if we analyze this in context, instead of out of context, we will see that it points to an entirely different conclusion: That the Alphas in that novel, while still the highest people in terms of education, were bred from the same seed, as were nearly all people, and thus had a very small amount of individuality. So, Aldous Huxley was really stating that when one attempts to understand the entirety of human society through mathematical or scientific methods, it doesn’t work, because there are too many individuals who confound any psychological state or ideal and are not true to scientific method or analysis.

People are always going to show some contempt at their place in organized society; this is one of the more common ailments in any sort of freedom. But what we really need to look at is how we can make it better and relieve the contempt, through contemplation and ideals. A person will find out that in a no win situation, the best way is to resign yourself to your fate, accept it and move on; this being an imperfect world, things are never balanced in the way they ought to be. In Catch 22, Joseph Yossarian knew he was in a no win situation until the end, when he found his escape route and left the situation unanswered.

If people are educated properly for a time long enough, and accept this education, then here is one thing which will happen: People will improve their minds and their lives. Any sensibly trained human being can sit when told or lie over for a treat, but the truly learned individual will know when to lie over and when to stop the hand from feeding it because the hand is dirty. People will recognize the evil in the world and attempt to stop it; they will try and find logical ways to escape the evil without causing any real damage to anyone.

Now, Tran (Just wondering, is it supposed to be “Tran” or “Tee-Ran”?), I seem to have been misunderstood. I was not suggesting that all people are exactly the same, or even that they all should become Harvard professors, or the like. What I am saying is simple. We should try and educate ourselves. Mathematics and literature, especially. Every other subject of study branches off of these two; this type of education, at least until about middle school, would give assistance on such things and mechanic operation and the creation of instruction manuals.

You also have to remember three things: That, first of all, Huxley was stating that we should learn to accept our place in life, not that everyone should be in love with what they do.

Secondly, there will always be high end jobs and low end jobs. If someone couldn’t get a high end job, even they were educated, then the rest would eventually fill up.

Thirdly, even the greatest thinkers aren’t all in high positions of income or power. There are many cases in which this type of lifestyle has even been rejected; not all educated people chase after high ends.
~ZM~

The issue is instead a matter of weighing between perceived benefits and consequences (pros vs. cons). After the fact (or act, as it were), it becomes a question of accepting the consequences of your choice. Either you choose to engage and you have to accept the consequences (possible pregnancy, infection, emotional impact or maybe none and only pleasure), or you choose not to and have to deal with those consequences (not having the pleasure).

I’m not arguing either way. I just think one must be careful and deliberate when considering “qualifications”, if you will, and qualifying one’s argument on the topic.
~~~~~

I’m inclined to agree with ZenMaintenance. Essentially, people need to have the freedom to learn, to experiment, to experience. But freedom, of course, requires a certain restraint in its exercise or it becomes meaningless, dangerous, or both. I do, however, disagree with ZM on some important levels.

First, I do not believe it’s possible to base a meaningful ethical or moral system on the “average” of society. There must be something more concrete and real. But maybe that’s just wishful thinking. I haven’t been able to reach a conclusion on these matters.

I do believe it is absurd to propose that the anatomy involved can be worn out. The cell types involved (mostly skin) are quickly replaced. I’m sure that within some amount of time, there’s no physiological difference between a slightly promiscuous person and a very promiscuous person (ignoring possibilities like infections, etc.).

Instead of “how many times”, I think it’s a matter of “how often”. I would argue that very promiscuous people are disgusting that way for reasons of hygiene, mostly, as well as behaviour, “social norms”, and our individual standards. It’s not as though your partner is permanently “taken in”, even if there’s conception. Eventually, the fetus leaves the womb. So, like ZM says, it becomes a matter of sacrificing cleanliness. But I don’t think the biological aspects of any part of sex are finite, except of course, human mortality.
~~~~~

Malice:
Naturally societal standards change with the times. Would you really have it any other way? The idea mortifies me: if standards don’t change with the times, there’s no hope for the things the standards have wrong right now. “The times” never get it completely right. I think there’s plenty of evidence for this, now and in the past. Like you say, our current times aren’t exactly perfect. But neither were the ’60s, the ’50s, the ’30s, the ’20s, the 1800s, or 0 AD.

Similarly, you propose what is, for the most part, a valid “biological” perspective of the necessity of libido and the drive to reproduce, but do you really think the standards of any “times” were based on strictly biological, rational criteria?

It’s important to keep in mind that reproduction and the sex drive exist for one reason, and no others: continuation of the species. So it is not as though the urge to procreate will ever vary with the species’ situation. Just because we don’t need (in our culture) to have the sex drive we used to doesn’t mean it will go away. Similarly, just because we “needed” to reproduce faster back then, it doesn’t mean that’s why we did.
~~~~~

I agree, that our generation should be more responsible. However, I believe it is flawed to compare our time with any other. While history is certainly the reason why things are the way they are today, history has no control on our future. It might be able to teach us what we need to do differently, but it cannot stop us from creating what we choose to create.

There is no such thing as destiny.

Choice is the only truth.

Parties and ideologies aside, it seems like we (our culture) really is only ever seeking a “victim”.

Well written, Firebrand.

Smart aleck!

You sound so much like Mrs. Hall. Not that that’s a bad thing (I love you, Mrs. Hall!). It’s just funny.

You are, of course, completely correct, as well.

~Tran22

People do naturally have a sex drive, yes, but this was because people used to have very short lives, 20s, 30s if you were lucky, and so their bodies maximized the time they could have children, for the maximum ages back then. The times have changed, however, because people are living much longer, and have more to choose from, yet the drive remains.

People no longer use it for the same purpose, either. It used to be necessary to have children at a young age to keep mankind alive and well, to make sure we, as a race didn’t die out. Young women were having children, lots of them. These children were also being used to help keep the family as a whole alive and well. This good, singular spouse system has been defiled and wretchified. Now, it is purely for enjoyment. Knowing who one is going to be with forever and expressing one’s love is one thing, galavanting about, sleeping with everything in sight. I realize this is a hyperbole, but even to a lower degree, this is still a serious matter.

People, as a whole, this “society” of which you speak, needs to straighten up, tighten their belts, possibly get chastity belts as well, and get their heads in gear. There are more important things to be done, such as bettering one’s self.

So, in order to put the argument out there, is requires a separation of 1) biology and 2) societal standards. The biology of it would be the fact that while yes, it is a natural lust to have and yes, the body makes sex enjoyable. But as more and more partners are taken in, as it were, the used areas may become more and more used, and this dirtier, or less appealing because of “wearing out” certain pieces of the body.

Secondly, society versus one’s morals. The argument here would be directed toward which is most important to the individual: How society works or how their standards work. Once one of these is deemed more important, then the decision of promiscuity versus less promiscuity can be more well determined.

So, the point comes to this: What level of cleanliness is one willing to sacrifice through their promiscuity? How much are they willing to use up biological finite supplies through their promiscuity?

And, which is more important to the individual, their views or the society’s?

In my opinion, people need to be reserved to some extent. But I still recognize the natural urges and the want to feel. I believe that people should simplify exercise caution in their promiscuous actions; if people want to experiment, that’s one thing, but if they go throwing their bodies around all the time, that’s another completely.