Evolution, the Aneros, and You

Indeed Captain Faust!! And Welcome to Aneros and this great community! 😀 😀

You raise a couple of great issues and I will respond in more detail soon. Just recovering from surgical procedure and still being doped – so clearer head soon. I look forward to posting with you here in the Forum and chatting in the expanding Chat Rooms here too!!

all the best scientific orgasmic spiritual full range investigations and discoveries revelations here all

artform

Speedy recovery Art!:)

Mog

Thanks Mog!! 😀 😀

Bloody lithotripsy.... ..... .....

artform

Captain Faust

Thanks for the very nice interpretation of our evolution. I pretty much agree with all you have said.

It’s interesting to consider our still-primitive sex drives in relation to modern monogamous societies. One could argue that women have gotten exactly what their instincts would want them to get, while men have gotten just the opposite.

Women get the assurance that we will stick around for the long haul, while we men are stuck dealing with the desire to poke every attractive woman we see, along with the frustration of being forbidden by society from doing it. It's kind of amazing that we behave as well as we do.

The other big evolutionary hangover is our unconstrained fertility. Back when our mammoth-hunter’s lifespan was thirty years or less, it was just about right. But now with technology and plenty of food and medicine we live far longer but we just keep multiplying at the same old rate, and ultimately something will have to give.

Maybe some day our society will recognize self-pleasuring devices like the Aneros as powerful tools for helping contain the population explosion. Knowing what we here know, it’s impossible to think that all men would not become faithful users.

One can speculate that this is already happening in Japan, which generations ago had a very high birthrate, but now it is low. It is probably no coincidence that there is a healthy social acceptance there of male sex toys. While our society mostly tells us to suppress our primitive urges, theirs accepts them and develops alternative outlets. We could learn a few things from them.

Artform:
Get well soon. Gallstone? If so, will be interested in hearing the results.

Woodsman

Woodsman,

I'm glad you found my post interesting. And you raise some subtle and important points in your responses:

1. "Our still primitive sex drives": You're absolute spot on with this. It's impossible to understand the mysteries of human sexuality in modern society without accounting for the fact that our behaviors evolved in an environment totally unlike the one we live in today. The first agriculturalists only appeared about 10,000 years ago, an eyeblink in evolutionary time. When agriculture came along, the playing field totally transformed while the fundamental rules played the same. It's as though we were all playing chess, and then suddenly we started playing checkers with chess pieces. Then when the industrial revolution happened, everything transformed again.

2. "Our unconstrained fertility": Again, totally right here. When you look at the few nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes left today, like the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, most women only produce two or three children that live to adulthood. Food supply is one constraint. The other big one is that you can only have as many babies as there are people to carry them!

But you know what's really the best form of birth control today? Affluence. It seems to be an immutable law that as soon as a country becomes rich, it's fertility rate plummets.

3. On women benefiting from monogamy: In one sense you're right, but there's a couple points we need to consider:

First, I don't think unrestrained promiscuity is the "natural" state for human sexual relationships for men or women. Instead, it's serial monogamy. That's what the feelings love and jealousy are really all about. To form a bond that commits both parents to taking care of their child. But we all know that the initial bliss of being in love only lasts a few years at most. Just the right amount of time until the child is old enough that it's a little easier to take care of. At that point, both parents can, and often did, move on to someone else.

Second, based on my own experiences and the reports of others, many women have a propensity to chase after Alpha Male assholes even when they know they will never get them to commit to a monogamous relationship. How many times have you heard some women say they just want a "nice guy" who'll take care of them? But for some reason it always seems they end up dating "assholes" who cheat on them or use them and dump them. Their "rational brain" is telling them they should want a good provider, but their "primitive instincts" say something very different.

Why is this? One way to explain it is with the "Sexy Sons" theory. From the perspective a woman's genes what kind of son is most likely to spread them widely? It's not the stable, provider dad; it's the promiscuous ladies man. Which one is more likely to produce sons who will be Casanovas?

Now the best situation for her would be to get the Casanova to settle down and commit to only her. Have you ever read a romance novel? It seems like every one of them follows this exact plot! But second best is a fling with the Alpha Male. Especially, if she can fool a provider dad into thinking the Alpha baby is his!*

So, the strict enforcement of monogamy exists to prevent this kind of thing from happening. What's fascinating is that recent developments like birth control, increasing affluence, and urban anonymity have allowed our "primitive" behaviors to emerge. I'm basing this claim from my own experience as a late-20s/early 30s guy on the dating market in a major East Coast city.

*I hope this observation doesn't offend anyone as sounding misogynistic. I assure you I am not. Remember, nature has nothing to do with morality, and just because we have these instincts doesn't mean it's right to act on them. And most people (hopefully) don't.

Thanks so much Artform! Based on other posts you've written, I'm very interested in hearing your perspective on this.

I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling well, and I wish you a speedy recovery.

A very intriguing subject matter Captain Faust! Thank you for posting your thoughts, and welcome to the Aneros forums. 🙂

I'll be quite interested to continue reading this thread as it develops.

Love_is

So it seems that by using the Aneros to "hack" our nervous system into giving us female-type orgasms, we're working against the consequences of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

I think a simple fact is being overlooked here: the fact that we can have super orgasms at all. How can you be so sure we are "hacking" our nervous system or that it's not a crucial part of being human? Are P-waves really a physical and measurable phenomena? What if P-waves can't even be measured in the brain, what if it comes from the mind? ...[COLOR="red"](shortened post for staying on topic)...

I won't be able to seriously debate any of my thoughts as they trail off into scientifically-untestable theories, but interested in your rebuttal... on top of that I've never had a super orgasm.

Korkelz,

I'm not certain I can offer a rebuttal to the most important points you raise, because they arise out of fundamental philosophical differences between us. I am a materialist atheist who values knowledge produced by the scientific method above all else. But let me say I am not one of those atheist who gets off on terrorizing theists in debate with a smugly superior tone. I used to be religious myself, so I can relate to and respect your beliefs, because they sound like beliefs I once held. Moreover, this is not the place to be getting into debates about the existence of God or the soul. So if you don't mind, I'd rather avoid getting into that stuff.

However, I will address your suggestion that determining the nature of sensations we experience is scientifically untestable. Off the top of my head, there are tools that actually do exist that allow us to see what goes on inside the brain during orgasm. Neuroscientists routinely use Positron Emition Tomography and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging to see how the brain responds to all sorts of activities, including sex.

Here's two papers I found just now about fMRI and PET observations of brain function during sexual stimulation of both men and women:

Functional MRI of the Brain During Orgasm in Women

Brain Activation During Human Male Ejaculation

So doing one of these studies on men with the ability to Super-O with the Aneros is totally feasible. I wish I were a neuroscientist so I could do the study myself.

Maybe Aneros should provide funding for this study. Think what it would it would do for their advertising if they could say "Scientifically Proven to Induce Female-type Orgasm in Men!!!"

Or we could take a collection and fund the study ourselves. I've got $10 in my pocket right now that I'm willing to pony up. 🙂

Finally, here's my basis for my hypothesis that Aneros-use is a "hack." During the development of the human fetus in the uterus the very first evidence of differentiation in the genitals between males and females doesn't happen until four weeks after conception. What that means is the cells which the male and female genitals develop from are the same. In this case of the homology between the clitoris and the penis it's pretty obvious. However, it's less well known that women have an organ homologous with the prostate called Skene's glands. Located on both sides of the urethra, it's believed that they're the source of female ejaculations and are the G-spot.

See this: List of homologues of the human reproductive system

So, my reasoning goes like this: If every part of the female reproductive system has a homologue in the male's, then it's not unreasonable to think that both males and females have the ability to have homologous orgasms. Women can have male-like orgasms and men can have female-like orgasms. And as I talked about above, I think this is a testable hypothesis.

Here's why I say that's a "hack." Clearly the male genitals are set up so that's it's nearly impossible to have a prostate orgasm from normal intercourse. But through human ingenuity we've found a way to do it that induces orgasm, and not always an ejaculatory one. It's a "hack," because there must be some reason that the ability for males to easily have prostate orgasms evolved that way. And the reason it evolved that way is males who had that ability must have been at some kind of reproductive disadvantage to males who didn't.

Also, notice I'm not just talking about humans here. The roots of this differentiation probably lie at least tens of millions of years farther back in evolutionary history and maybe hundreds of millions of years.

If we can "hack" our nervous system, is that because evolution decided so or is it because evolution missed something?

A great set of posts, Captain. I wish I had to time to properly respond, but here are a couple of my ideas.

Not every specific capability we have needs to confer an evolutionary advantage. The ability of a man to have a prostate orgasm might be a by-product of the ability to have a penile orgasm, or of a woman to have a g-spot orgasm. In effect, the prostate orgasm goes along for the ride.

I too think of myself as a materialist atheist with a great regard for scientifically derived knowledge. In fact, I have such high regard for the scientific method that I see no reason why it can't be applied to individual, subjectively felt experience. Why must a phenomenon be physical to be examined using a scientific approach? For example, it's clear that humans have the capacity to have what are called spiritual experiences. Even if we never find a physical correlation to that felt experience, are we going to suggest that experience is not "real"? And if we do find a physical correlation are we going to suggest that the physical expression of that experience is more real than the felt experience?

Korkelz,

That's a good question, although it sounds strange to me to speak of evolution "deciding" something, because to me evolution is just a label for the way natural selection functions to increase the prevalence of adaptive genetic mutations and decrease the prevalence of maladaptive ones. To me it's no more goal-oriented a natural process than the weather cycle or stellar formation.

I guess there's two possibilities here. Either prostate orgasms are something that was actively selected against at some point, or none of our male ancestors ever had that ability, and it's just a by-product of the homologous development of the genitalia of males and females. If it's the first possibility, then I think natural selection did a pretty good job of making it nearly impossible to have one via normal intercourse by making it so difficult to stimulate externally. No need to completely eliminate it, since it's already pretty well taken care of. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, it might be that completely eliminating the ability to have prostate orgasms would mess up it's normal function in ejaculatory orgasms.

And if it's the other option, then it seems that a mutation that would have made having prostate orgasms easier has just never happened. Or if it did happen, it might not have conferred any real advantage on that individual, and so it didn't spread very far. Either way, the occasion never arose that made it necessary to totally eliminate the ability.

MultiD,

Exactly. In our current environment it's probably not disadvantageous. As long as I don't start skipping out on work too much to do it.

As for your other point, if you are really a materialist, then all phenomena are physical. By an individual, subjectively felt experience, I'm guessing you mean something like an emotion. I can't see anger, for example, but I know exactly what it feels like to be angry. But it's possible to imagine that when I'm angry, my brain is flooded with a certain mix of neurotransmitters and my neurons are firing in the same way they always do when I'm angry. So even though I can't see it or touch it, it's definitely physical.

I don't want to get into any kind of religious discussion, but if you're interested there's a big literature out there applying evolutionary theory to religious experience: Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Isn't the rule of evolution more a rule of "what gets used is reinforced"? So wouldn't that mean: the longer humanity has gone without super orgasms, the harder it would be to achieve and vice versa?

Isn't the rule of evolution more a rule of "what gets used is reinforced"? So wouldn't that mean: the longer humanity has gone without super orgasms, the harder it would be to achieve and vice versa?

I'd agree with that.

As a solitary activity, it doesn't contribute much to socialization or threading one's genes throughout society.

OTOH, we tend to be more loving of ourselves, less competitive and more peaceful with our brothers.

The benefits of improved collaboration and fewer distractions might prove to be a higher order benefit to society and the population as a whole.

@Capitain Faust: IMO there's a fundamental disconnect between male and female on many levels. You say women have to have an amazing orgasm to become attached to the male. You know it's relatively recent development that it was recognized women could orgasm at all! Feminism has helped liberate the female to explore her sexuality(hopefully Aneros can do the same for males).
IMO the reason the reason this disconnect evolved is so women wouldn't enjoy sex.Coz it takes females much longer to climax than males odds are she would hardly enjoy the experience.( It's interesting to note that even now, when women are more aware of their sexuality, many still rarely orgasm during intercourse and sex rates lower than shopping, chocolate etc.). What's the point of that? Natural selection, or, how women could use sex for protection/wealth/status that would give her babies most chance of survival. So whereas men are probably attracted by good genes, women are attracted by what men have that can benefit her and her kiddies

The other disconnect is,as males grow older their libido diminishes while as women grow old and less attractive their libido increases.Isn't nature great!

Anyway to me the interesting question would be, what are the implications of males being able to have female orgasms, an orgasm that men are due to their programming more to appreciate than women(coz they have different evolutionary objectives). And what happens when mankind thru this type of orgasm can transcend the sexual, how will the traditional roles between male and female change, how will society change?

I think there's an interesting parallel with religion.
Religion says go forth and multiply + eternal life blabla. Coz after all if you think about it, why MUST we reproduce? A bit senseless after all
Much misery has been avoided by restricting reproduction in developed countries.(we're moving more and more to the desired outcome 0)
As atheists are fond of saying: It takes religion for good men to do bad things. Similarly I'd say the same about reproduction. The things one is willing to do to support a family, one would even be willing to kill for! The same goes for greed. After all we want the best for our children

John Lennon was a hypocrite but IMO the only way his song Imagine could work would be if mankind would no longer reproduce. Think about it.
But this could only happen if there was no religion

Here the lyrics:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

So continuing down the train of thought that evolution is based on reinforcement, how about the hypothesis that in 100,000 years (or however long evolution takes) super orgasms will become the norm, sex will no longer be required for pleasure, and we will no longer need birth control (men learn to have dry orgasms and now we choose when to multiply and when not).

MultiD,

Exactly. In our current environment it's probably not disadvantageous. As long as I don't start skipping out on work too much to do it.

As for your other point, if you are really a materialist, then all phenomena are physical. By an individual, subjectively felt experience, I'm guessing you mean something like an emotion. I can't see anger, for example, but I know exactly what it feels like to be angry. But it's possible to imagine that when I'm angry, my brain is flooded with a certain mix of neurotransmitters and my neurons are firing in the same way they always do when I'm angry. So even though I can't see it or touch it, it's definitely physical.

I don't want to get into any kind of religious discussion, but if you're interested there's a big literature out there applying evolutionary theory to religious experience: Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Thanks for the referral to material about evolutionary psychology of religion. That's a good example of science dealing with an internal experience. There is a recognition of the nearly universal religious experience of people. And while I am very comfortable with the idea that such experiences have their roots in the physical, these experiences transcend the physical (Ken Wilber writes a lot about that.)

I understand that philosophers have argued many of these points, and others have opposing views to mine, but I have a hard time living a practical life based on some of the conclusions of a strict materialist. Perhaps I am not a materialist, but I don't know what word to apply. I believe that all phenomena are dependent on the physical. At no time do I feel the need to invoke a supreme being or anything supernatural but I don't know how to deal with things like volition if we don't acknowledge something beyond what we think of as the physical. Consciousness may be fully dependent on the physical (and I believe it is), but I think it transcends the physical. A book is dependent on paper and ink, but I think we could all agree that a book is something more than that. Perhaps we can't agree on that, but believing that a book is no more than ink and paper seems to lead to some silly conclusions.

IMHO, nature itself provides the clues to why we are wired the way we are. Take the Lion species as an example. A female member of the pride will mate with the dominant male to ensure her offspring are strong and have the greatest chance of survival. The male however will mate with any or all the females in the pride to ensure the widest possible gene-pool and survival of his genes. Enter a more dominant male into the into the pride and the new dominant male will always kill the offspring of what was the dominant male. The moment this happens, the female will come on heat once again and be receptive to this new Alpha male even though he just killed her offspring.

How can we interpret that? Well, considering the only real difference between human beings and other mammals is that we’ve evolved the ability to reason. Everything else, including our need to continue reproducing the species is much the same. Even allowing for our evolved ability to rationalise, biologically all mammals respond the same way when it comes to reproduction. So the male experiences intense pleasure when ejaculating to motivate his interest in reproducing the species. The female on the other hand doesn’t need to have an orgasm to motivate her to procreate and reproduce.

I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves when we consider that males might not need to ejaculate to enjoy orgasm. It’s obviously true that we can achieve orgasm without ejaculation but the fundamental need to experience orgasm with simultaneous ejaculation is hard wired into our DNA. The orgasm for the human female is of far less consequence biologically because reproduction of the species will continue even in the absence of the female orgasm. The focus on the clitoris as the instrument of the female orgasm is a consequence of our ability to reason, rationalise and draw logical conclusions. Basically “if I rub myself there it feels good.” The female orgasm serves no real purpose other than to provide pleasure.

We might experiment and learn new paths to pleasure but isn’t it true that the separation of the male orgasm from ejaculation has been around in ancient cultures for thousands of years. To project a male population in future that might prefer experiencing orgasm without ejaculation is pre-supposing we will turn our backs on tens of thousands of years of evolution and completely override our genetic hard wiring. I don't think so.

Well, considering the only real difference between human beings and other mammals is that we’ve evolved the ability to reason. Everything else, including our need to continue reproducing the species is much the same.

I'd say our ability to reason enables humanity to transcend the automatic responses of the rest of the animal kingdom. When I think of sex it's the enjoyable experience not the making of babies that's behind it. In fact it's probably only humans that are conscious of the fact that one leads to the other. Knowing this man has invented all type of contraception. So just because in nature one leads to the other it's not the NEED for reproduction that's behind it.

It’s obviously true that we can achieve orgasm without ejaculation but the fundamental need to experience orgasm with simultaneous ejaculation is hard wired into our DNA

Let's say, for argumentsake, this is true, just like we use contraception coz we see what it leads to, you still have the choise then NOT to ejaculate when it might lead to babies

We might experiment and learn new paths to pleasure but isn’t it true that the separation of the male orgasm from ejaculation has been around in ancient cultures for thousands of years

.

So has religion and state tyrannies that encouraged people to have large families(cannon fodder, more slaves, the larger the population the more power). In fact I read China(where the Tao-ist teaching originated) encouraged just that. Coz the larger the population, the bigger the army, and the bigger the army the better the chance of conquering neighbouring territories.

To project a male population in future that might prefer experiencing orgasm without ejaculation is pre-supposing we will turn our backs on tens of thousands of years of evolution and completely override our genetic hard wiring

Rational as mankind is we need reasons to procreate, so it's culturally not genetically(like the need for sexual pleasure) driven. As we see in third world countries today, where the monotheistic religions still have an important part to play and where their puppetmasters like the Pope despite the overpopulation and the poverty caused by it still won't endorse condom use and still encourages to be fruitful. Cause after all life is cheap and as long as you believe in their God you might have misery and suffering in life but when you die you'll have eternal life!
We might say this is outrageous, but at least THEY have a reason to procreate, what about atheists who believe when you die you're dead. How pointless is it then to procreate?!

So you have the religious, the racist, the nationalistic and the me-too/lemming arguments. To me that's all cultural, NOT hardwired

this is getting too intense for me if you procreate then you live on for as long as your decendants walk the earth so heaven or just rot in the ground it benefits you to leave your genetic fingerprint in your offspring

it benefits you to leave your genetic fingerprint in your offspring

Benefits why? Besides we're not talking about your clone, it's a random mixture of genetic material that can be anything, including a child with cancer, down's syndrome etc. Who cares if the child's got the same color eyes or hair? and oftentimes there's a natural reaction, meaning children often become the complete opposite of their parents.(which would make the passing on of knowledge taken a lifetime to collect obsolete) Either way it's a lottery ticket.
But you've got me intrigued, why does it benefit YOU that a hundred years later when your rotting away there's someone that's partially got (a combination of )your dna?
Aren't we all human? I'm sure everyone's dna has a lot of similarities. I know there are racists that believe they have to keep their skincolor pure, but apart from a view like that(that I don't subscribe to), I really can't understand why people would want to preserve some of their outer characteristics.

Living on to me would mean your person/consciousness or whatever irrespective of body(dna)

I think we're confusing some issues here. Evolution doesn't care about the individual one iota. Evolution is all about the species. However, in order for the species to evolve, individuals have impulses that are experienced as personal and self-serving. These desires don't have to make sense from a rational point of view. That it doesn't benefit me personally to reproduce doesn't affect my beliefs, thoughts and attitudes toward reproductive behavior. From a purely rational point of view, I shouldn't care if my son or granddaughter dies. Their death won't materially affect human kind. But evolution has caused me to have an emotional bond that I perceive as personal love.

The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't keep me from having the built in desire to engage in reproductive behavior. We don't really have a desire to reproduce. What we have is the desire to mate. Reproduction is just the outcome of the unrelated desire.

So you have the religious, the racist, the nationalistic and the me-too/lemming arguments. To me that's all cultural, NOT hardwired

Human culture is the result of evolutionary processes. Our religious, racist, and nationalistic behavior is hardwired as surely as our language learning ability is built-in. Evolution has built us to be lemmings.

However, in order for the species to evolve(sic), individuals have impulses that are experienced as personal and self-serving

mutations, environmental changes, and the ones that are best in adapting will survive>evolution.

These desires don't have to make sense from a rational point of view. That it doesn't benefit me personally to reproduce doesn't affect my beliefs, thoughts and attitudes toward reproductive behavior

This is the question, as you yourself admit we do what we experience as selfserving.
We as homo sapiens still have animal instincts, lust etc. We like to rationalize this with ceremonies (marriage) and love etc but really it's just our lust to have sex. This should be reproductive, but the very faculty that sets us apart from the animalworld is our ability to think things thru.
So we devise contraception so we have the pleasure and not the pain.
Up until recently we haven't had the alternative either to truely sublimate this animal desire. But what about now we are enabled to have an orgasm that's many times better than nature's (default)mode?
Sure we're still hardwired to respond to a sexy women's voice/ body etc. But now there's a superior alternative, I for one couldn't care less if I never had a woman again. Being with a woman has advantages and disadvantages and quite frankly, and especially now, I'd say way more disadvantages.

That it doesn't benefit me personally to reproduce doesn't affect my beliefs, thoughts and attitudes toward reproductive behavior. From a purely rational point of view, I shouldn't care if my son or granddaughter dies.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?As homo sapiens we know the outcome of reproductive behaviour if remained unchecked, just like we know if we jump from a 12 high building what the effects of gravity will be. How many more people have to die coz people couldn't be bothered wearing contraception? But yes obviously, once your child is born you'll become attached, if you didn't want it to die you would have made sure it was never born in the first place.

We don't really have a desire to reproduce. What we have is the desire to mate. Reproduction is just the outcome of the unrelated desire.

EXACTLY, this is the crux of the matter.

Human culture is the result of evolutionary processes. Our religious, racist, and nationalistic behavior is hardwired as surely as our language learning ability is built-in. Evolution has built us to be lemmings

You're pretending we don't have a choise, sure we're social animals. The rest is conditioning. To say everything that's a result of that is evolution is too deterministic, you could then claim suicide bombers is evolution as well, they just couldn't help themselves>evolution!
The antidote of conditioning is providing alternative information and I believe (and hope this will continue)the TMTrevolution is a Godsent as this will facilitate people to detach more and more from the groupthink and find their own way.
Sure strife(the result of nationalism, racism and other kinds of superiority thinking) has helped mankind to come where it is today, but we have the capacity now to kill every man woman and child a 100 times over. Enough is enough! Time to really become human. The internet(information) and the Aneros(the alternative)can make this happen.

in other threads on this forum (eg, http://www.aneros.com/forum/f5/insane-vibrations-revelations-14924/ ) i have offered my admittedly stoned evolutionary explanation for male dry orgasms and anal sexual response: in our ancestral past part of the social organization involved common male receptive anal sex. less dominant males submitted to anal sex to gain favors from alpha males. the more orgasmic the submissive male the more he physically responded to the alpha male's copulation, giving both of them a more sought after experience.

this theory came to me while i was high and coming repeatedly on an imagined male penis (aneros).

darwin

As homo sapiens we know the outcome of reproductive behaviour if remained unchecked, just like we know if we jump from a 12 high building what the effects of gravity will be.

Actually, many suggest that the fear of falling is inborn, not learned. The knowledge of the result of our reproductive behavior is very different from our knowing the danger of falling. I got to experience that in the CN tower while visiting Toronto. The observation deck has a portion of the floor that is glass. As I stood on the non-glass portion of the floor I looked down through the glass. I have no fear of heights, and it was easy. I started to step on the glass floor and found myself unable to put my foot on it. I felt enormous anxiety and reluctance to stand on the glass. I saw kids lying on the glass, and my rational mind knew there was no danger, but the feelings persisted. I was well aware of what was happening, and eventually I chose to stand on the glass, but the feeling persisted for about 15 minutes, well after I had left the tower.

You're pretending we don't have a choise, sure we're social animals. The rest is conditioning. To say everything that's a result of that is evolution is too deterministic, you could then claim suicide bombers is evolution as well, they just couldn't help themselves>evolution!

I don't think I'm pretending we don't have a choice. In the CN tower I made the choice to overcome my natural impulse. I made the choice to have a vasectomy after my son was born. Our lemming impulse can be overcome. The problem is in developing the awareness that we have a choice. How often have we read of those Aneros users who, knowing that the process they are pursuing is aided by withholding ejaculation, say that they had no choice about ejaculating? There are many things about which we have choice -- many more things than we imagine. But there are also many things over which we have no choice. The trick is in knowing the difference.

Actually, many suggest that the fear of falling is inborn, not learned. The knowledge of the result of our reproductive behavior is very different from our knowing the danger of falling

Well the son of Eric Clapton and countless newsarticles of babies falling out of windows to their death would suggest otherwise. But I agree, something like that would be logical if it was inborn, although so would avoidance of fire(many babies have to get burned first before they learn).
So maybe it's a bad example, maybe not, anyway, the point I was trying to make is, what sets us humans apart is that we can think things thru. As you said yourself":

We don't really have a desire to reproduce. What we have is the desire to mate. Reproduction is just the outcome of the unrelated desire.

Enter contraception.

I don't think I'm pretending we don't have a choice. In the CN tower I made the choice to overcome my natural impulse. I made the choice to have a vasectomy after my son was born. Our lemming impulse can be overcome. The problem is in developing the awareness that we have a choice. How often have we read of those Aneros users who, knowing that the process they are pursuing is aided by withholding ejaculation, say that they had no choice about ejaculating? There are many things about which we have choice -- many more things than we imagine. But there are also many things over which we have no choice. The trick is in knowing the difference

True, as they say in NLP we're hypnosis machines, we can believe all kinds of things. And we can hypnotize ourselves in such a way that it seems real.

As I stated in a thread very similar to this one: http://www.aneros.com/forum/f5/take-chance-15124/
Why are we always looking for things outside of ourselves for confirmation?
We can make ourselves believe all kinds of garbage. In the religious community they start speaking in tongues as they're so convinced that the holy spirit is in them(other primitive societies have similar selfdelusions). Or we can convince ourselves we're in love and are being loved.
There must be a part inside the brain that enables us to do the same that we can have a mystical experience or the warmth of feeling loved without the bogus?
Aneros, it's da sh*t!

But you've got me intrigued, why does it benefit YOU that a hundred years later when your rotting away there's someone that's partially got (a combination of )your dna?

This exact question puzzled evolutionary biologists for a long time. The answer is that the fundamental unit of natural selection is not the individual or even the species, it's the gene! Individual genes struggle for space on the chromosome. Ones that confer some advantageous effect on their "host" tend to survive. Ones that are disadvantageous, like causing severe birth defects for example, tend to die out. Your particular combination of genes is diluted beyond recognition after only a couple of generations, but almost all of the individual genes that make up your unique genome will be reproduced in many, many people.

It was a revolutionary idea and helped resolve many of the problems evolutionary biologists had been dealing with.

If you're interested you should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins: Amazon.com: The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author (9780199291151): Richard Dawkins: Books