Monogamy can be lethal…

… or so a new study published in Slate demonstates. Sexual conservatism leads to higher propagation rates for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Don’t mind the pseudo-economics bullshit tacked on to this article, the facts themselves are interesting enough.

That’s why increased activity by sexual conservatives can slow down the rate of infection and reduce the prevalence of AIDS. In fact, according to Professor Michael Kremer of MIT’s economics department, the spread of AIDS in England could plausibly be retarded if everyone with fewer than about 2.25 partners per year were to take additional partners more frequently. That covers three-quarters of British heterosexuals between the ages of 18 and 45. (Much of this column is inspired by Professor Kremer’s research.)

If multiple partnerships save lives, then monogamy can be deadly. Imagine a country where almost all women are monogamous, while all men demand two female partners per year. Under those conditions, a few prostitutes end up servicing all the men. Before long, the prostitutes are infected; they pass the disease to the men; and the men bring it home to their monogamous wives. But if each of those monogamous wives was willing to take on one extramarital partner, the market for prostitution would die out, and the virus, unable to spread fast enough to maintain itself, might die out along with it.

Queen of The Sun: What Are the Bees Telling Us? – Official Trailer [HD]

The culture of death and the culture of life.

The culture of death is a culture where death, both metaphorical and literal, is glorified and brought into effect everywhere, while the vital desires are suppressed or channeled for evil ends.

In a culture of death, religion would be centered around the concept of death as salvation, since sacrificing through death would be the only concept worth glorifying. Through death, everything is made anew. Death would be seen as something desirable, because it leads one to a world which is far better than this one, and for which a miserable life would be worth living (of course suicide would be discouraged, since that goes counter to the propagation of religion).

In a culture of death, war would be virtuous, as a deadly sacrifice. The exercise of mass death would be considered almost holy in itself. War rhetoric would portray the soldier as protector, in the same way that religious sacrifice through death protects the believer.

In a culture of death, entertainment would thoroughly desensitize people to the concept of humans being killed, programming them to not be repulsed by death sacrifice. In contrast, in such a culture, seeing the murder of a pet would lead to great outrage, but seeing dozens of people murdered would not be a problem at all.

In a culture of death, because of this constant desensitization process and dehumanization process, people would routinely call for brute violence to be done to their fellow citizens, even outright killing them, and this would be considered normal.

In a culture of death, everything that is good in children would have to be stomped out of them through incompetent parental child-raising and a schooling system that is little more than an indoctrination system. Otherwise they might grow up to be healthy adults who are repulsed by violence and sacrifice, which would be a disaster. Their minds would have to be deadened.

In a culture of death, children would have to learn that there is no such thing as right and wrong apart from orders from proper authorities, because ultimately they would have to learn that death, when properly ordered, is just.

In a culture of death, people would be motivated to have children instead of taking care of lives already existing. Since suffering and death would be ultimately positive, there would be little reason to try to relieve it. Having more children would be positive because it would provide more possible sacrifices.

In a culture of death, constant sub-divisions of society would be created so they could fight against each other and thus rely on some higher authority to bring their ideals to victory. The existence of this higher authority, which orders killings, would thereby be justified.

In a culture of death, people would be profoundly uneasy with suicide, since this would represent independently taking one’s life into one’s hands. Death would be a matter to be left in the hands of proper authorities.

In a culture of death, vital functions such as eating, sex, the desire for recognition, would all be reduced to the desire to control each other, dividing society further.

In short, a culture of death devalues human life and devalues the natural traits of healthy minds.

In a culture of life, religion would be centered around the joys of life. War would be considered a vice, and soldiers would be seen as killers. Entertainment would not peddle death as amusement. People would not call for violence or death to be inflicted on each other. The innate qualities of children would be preserved and cherished. Children would learn there is right and wrong, and that they are part of themselves. People would not be motivated to have children. People would rely on each other and deal with disagreements instead of appealing to higher authorities to suppress disagreeing parties. People would not be uneasy about suicide, and would simply accept it as freedom over one’s life. Vital functions would not lead people to try to control each other. Human life would be valued and the natural traits of healthy minds would be valued.

Cultures of death create societies based on control. Cultures of life create societies based on love. The choice between life and death is an ever-present choice. We make that choice with everything we do, think and say.

Even babies discriminate… but discriminate what?

This article, at first glance, seems to be saying that racism is inborn. But then there is this:

For decades, it was assumed that children see race only when society points it out to them. However, child-development researchers have increasingly begun to question that presumption. They argue that children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue—but we tell kids that “pink” means for girls and “blue” is for boys. “White” and “black” are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own.

It takes remarkably little for children to develop in-group preferences. Vittrup’s mentor at the University of Texas, Rebecca Bigler, ran an experiment in three preschool classrooms, where 4- and 5-year-olds were lined up and given T shirts. Half the kids were randomly given blue T shirts, half red. The children wore the shirts for three weeks. During that time, the teachers never mentioned their colors and never grouped the kids by shirt color.

The kids didn’t segregate in their behavior. They played with each other freely at recess. But when asked which color team was better to belong to, or which team might win a race, they chose their own color. They believed they were smarter than the other color. “The Reds never showed hatred for Blues,” Bigler observed. “It was more like, ‘Blues are fine, but not as good as us.’ ” When Reds were asked how many Reds were nice, they’d answer, “All of us.” Asked how many Blues were nice, they’d answer, “Some.” Some of the Blues were mean, and some were dumb—but not the Reds.

Bigler’s experiment seems to show how children will use whatever you give them to create divisions—seeming to confirm that race becomes an issue only if we make it an issue.

It’s not race that children observe… but all differences. So much for the thesis.

Imagine Rx2008

Fuck schools

Click on the comics to see them larger.

From the Pinky Show.