Re: Why is sex so controversial?
As far as I know, controversy is a matter of opinion. In this respect the opinions abut sex can be controversial (in relationship with each other), but that doesn't make sex itself controversial.
"So why does a sensually stimulating activity that often results in true feelings of happiness generate so much conflict?" I think this question is an altogether different one. At its core, sex is primarily about reproduction, and mates can be scarce resources, hence the competition and conflict. But it's still no controversy.
"Why would God want to deprive us of this happiness if he loves us?" First we need to establish that there is a God. Until then all we can say that people are told in God's name to do something. And some people seem to get the kick out of trying to portray a natural behavior as anything other than natural.
I would argue that extra-marital sex became forbidden in order to ensure the paternity of the children. That is why sex is a more serious offense for women than for men. Males try to ensure that they are investing in the raising of their own biological offspring, and one of the easiest ways is to fend off rivals and enforce monogamy on the females.
The controversy is the difference between what people feel as a natural desire and the dogmatic prohibition of sex.
Research in plant neurobiology shows that plants have senses, intelligence and emotions.
- The field of plant neurobiology studies the complex behavior of plants.
- Plants were found to have 15-20 senses, including many like humans.
- Some argue that plants may have awareness and intelligence, while detractors persist.
Most people think human extinction would be bad. These people aren't philosophers.
- A new opinion piece in The New York Times argues that humanity is so horrible to other forms of life that our extinction wouldn't be all that bad, morally speaking.
- The author, Dr. Todd May, is a philosopher who is known for advising the writers of The Good Place.
- The idea of human extinction is a big one, with lots of disagreement on its moral value.
Since the idea of locality is dead, space itself may not be an aloof vacuum: Something welds things together, even at great distances.
- Realists believe that there is an exactly understandable way the world is — one that describes processes independent of our intervention. Anti-realists, however, believe realism is too ambitious — too hard. They believe we pragmatically describe our interactions with nature — not truths that are independent of us.
- In nature, properties of Particle B may depend on what we choose to measure or manipulate with Particle A, even at great distances.
- In quantum mechanics, there is no explanation for this. "It just comes out that way," says Smolin. Realists struggle with this because it would imply certain things can travel faster than light, which still seems improbable.