drugs and prostitution

[rkbabang]

gotta have religion to be moral huh?

 

http://gawker.com/baptist-church-leader-arrested-for-soliciting-dog-sex-o-1617858449?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

It might disappear if it were legal.  The guy lives in a bubble of "do goodness", and needs an outlet.  When things are legal, they are no longer a naughty outlet.  The dog however is not consenting and it's just animal cruelty at that point -- animal cruelty cannot be legalized.

 

Teen binge drinking is probably worse when it's illegal.  At least, I remember my Australian cousins being more responsible around alcohol than I was at age 18.  People it seems get a thrill out of breaking rules.

 

The drinking age should be reduced or eliminated, as with the driving age.  Both of those have never made sense to me.  All you do is drive teens to drink more or turn to illegal drugs as an alternative, because they become easier to get.  I used to have to find someone to buy me alcohol in high school, but I could buy pot, mescaline, shrooms. acid, coke, or whatever else I wanted right in school.

 

The driving age is insane, because you learn better when you are younger.  I was illegally driving tractor trailers for my Dad when I was 13, as well as operating backhoes and excavators on job sites when I much younger than that.  My kids (13 & 14) are perfectly able to drive a vehicle.  They are as coordinated as they will ever be, they have as quick a reaction time as they will ever have, and they are both perfectly responsible.  These decisions (alcohol and driving) should be left to parents not government.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I used to have to find someone to buy me alcohol in high school, but I could buy pot, mescaline, shrooms. acid, coke, or whatever else I wanted right in school.

 

That's exactly right.  Because alcohol is legal for those over 21, there is therefore no black market for alcohol.  Therefore, it's harder for teens to get alcohol vs acid or coke.

[Mikenhe]

I used to have to find someone to buy me alcohol in high school, but I could buy pot, mescaline, shrooms. acid, coke, or whatever else I wanted right in school.

 

That's exactly right.  Because alcohol is legal for those over 21, there is therefore no black market for alcohol.  Therefore, it's harder for teens to get alcohol vs acid or coke.

 

and yet the 21 laws is only because the federal government blackmails every state over it...

 

but that's ok...

[rkbabang]

I used to have to find someone to buy me alcohol in high school, but I could buy pot, mescaline, shrooms. acid, coke, or whatever else I wanted right in school.

 

That's exactly right.  Because alcohol is legal for those over 21, there is therefore no black market for alcohol.  Therefore, it's harder for teens to get alcohol vs acid or coke.

 

and yet the 21 laws is only because the federal government blackmails every state over it...

 

but that's ok...

 

Yep, just like they used to do with the completely insane 55mph speed limit.

 

[rkbabang]

I do wonder how the cartels are shifting their business to adapt to the potential threat of drug legalization. I wonder how much they diversify into other businesses, drugs are not the only way to fund illegal organizations. As we can see in the Middle East with Islamic State and with the various militias in Eastern DRC groups can easily fund themselves using extortion, racketeering, smuggling, mining, oil sales, etc. Hell, while not quite a terrorist organization or purely criminal group, Hezbollah had a multimillion dollar cigarette selling operation going on in the US for a while. 

 

That is the problem with allowing these organizations to get so big and powerful in the first place.  Part of the drug problem in the first place was caused by organized crime finding something else to do after alcohol legalization.  If alcohol was never illegal in the first place these organizations wouldn't have gotten so huge.  If you legalize pot they will have to rely on harder drugs for their revenue, if you legalize all drugs something else will be found.  Anything with high taxes (like cigarettes) are a possibility and anything that is still illegal (prostitution, gambling, ??).  It is pretty hard for any large non-government organization to fund itself entirely by theft/extortion/etc, without a high demand product or service to offer on the black market in the U.S. where many people are armed and almost anyone who wants to be armed can be.  Without the perceived "legitimacy" of government theft/violence/extortion/kidnapping/etc will only get you so far.

 

[rkbabang]

Expanding on my last post.  I don't think most organized criminal organizations care very much about the pot legalization efforts.  That isn't really their money maker.  Pot is bulky and hard to transport, it grows like a weed almost anywhere, and takes no special processing or chemistry to turn the plant into its usable form.  Therefore organized crime is competing with every teenager who wants to plant a few plants in the woods behind his house and lot's of other small-time competition.  With coke and heroin (and many other drugs) on the other hand you need a large organization to take that from where it is grown through complicated production processes, and into market in the U.S., yet these drugs are less bulky and easier to smuggle.  This is where organized crime can add the most value and where it probably makes the majority of its profits.

 

So with pot the only people with a lot to lose are law enforcement, the prison industry, and the alcohol industry. This is why that is where you see the opposition coming from.

 

I think if there was ever a serious chance of all drugs being legalized in the U.S. you'd see organized crime getting involved in a big (VERY BIG) way.  You'd see a ton of money being spent on political campaigns, outright bribes, and even targeted assassinations.  It is too big an industry and these organizations have gotten extremely powerful and now have a lot to lose.  It should have never gotten to this point, none of this had to happen.  This drug war is completely tearing apart some countries (like Mexico).  Anytime you interfere in the free market using force there are unintended consequences which you can't control.

 

[rkbabang]

Saw this and thought of this topic:

 

She's not a whore if she's an actress

[ERICOPOLY]

Can we get back to talking about drugs and prostitution?

 

Just wait until someone starts a thread to discuss religion and morality. Then you can derail it with a discussion on drugs and prostitution.

 

Or derail it discussing white slavery in Africa...  oh well, sorry.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

 

The European slaves were acquired by local pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to Spain, Portugal, France, England and as far afield as Iceland. Men, women and children were captured to such a devastating extent that vast numbers of seacoast towns were abandonded. According to Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis, who has studied the often neglected white slave trade, at its peak, the depopulation of the European coasts probably exceeded the damage done to the African interior by European slavers.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_the_Barbary_Coast

Life for the white slaves in Africa was no better than the worst conditions of the black slaves in America. White slaves worked in quarries, mines and as rowers for the Barbary Pirates' corsairs.

 

Commercial ships from the United States of America were subject to pirate attacks. In 1783, the United States made peace with, and gained recognition from, the British monarchy. In 1784, the first American ship was seized by pirates from Morocco. By late 1793, a dozen American ships had been captured, goods stripped and everyone enslaved. After some serious debate, the US created the United States Navy in March 1794.[6]

 

This new military presence helped to stiffen American resolve to resist the continuation of tribute payments, leading to the two Barbary Wars along the North African coast: the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805[7] and the Second Barbary War in 1815. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states had amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800.[8] It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the United States. Some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.[9]

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

The illegal drug industrial complex is much larger than most people realize...

 

Just think how many people are employed in the criminal justice system just to deal with drug problems...Judges, lawyers, guards, jailers, probation officers, etc.  I would think that amounts to hundreds of billions per year.

 

If drugs were legalized, 85% of these people would lose their jobs.  What would happen to inner cities?  What would happen to the people in the "justice" system?

 

Think of how many people in the inner city are employed directly, OR indirectly in drug trafficking.  If dealing drugs was no longer a possibility how would they get money?  Would they have to get "regular" jobs?

 

A lot of things would change, that is for sure!

[ERICOPOLY]

Hey all:

 

The illegal drug industrial complex is much larger than most people realize...

 

Just think how many people are employed in the criminal justice system just to deal with drug problems...Judges, lawyers, guards, jailers, probation officers, etc.  I would think that amounts to hundreds of billions per year.

 

If drugs were legalized, 85% of these people would lose their jobs.  What would happen to inner cities?  What would happen to the people in the "justice" system?

 

Think of how many people in the inner city are employed directly, OR indirectly in drug trafficking.  If dealing drugs was no longer a possibility how would they get money?  Would they have to get "regular" jobs?

 

A lot of things would change, that is for sure!

 

You probably also have a lot of prisoners being put in the hospital on a regular basis by their violent cellmates.  Alleviating the prison overcrowding would lessen that, and reduce the number of associated healthcare workers.  More jobs lost.

 

The good news is... so many positions we could create a cleaner society!  Paying people to build and maintain proper public toilet facilities seems better than employing them in prisons instead.

[Liberty]

Hey all:

 

The illegal drug industrial complex is much larger than most people realize...

 

Just think how many people are employed in the criminal justice system just to deal with drug problems...Judges, lawyers, guards, jailers, probation officers, etc.  I would think that amounts to hundreds of billions per year.

 

If drugs were legalized, 85% of these people would lose their jobs.  What would happen to inner cities?  What would happen to the people in the "justice" system?

 

Think of how many people in the inner city are employed directly, OR indirectly in drug trafficking.  If dealing drugs was no longer a possibility how would they get money?  Would they have to get "regular" jobs?

 

A lot of things would change, that is for sure!

 

I think it would be a very good thing. I would love to see all those people doing something more beneficial to the civilization. I think this is a case of the broken window fallacy.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

[DTEJD1997]

There is no shortage of work needing to be done in this world!

 

I think a great example would be demolition crews in Detroit.

 

There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of structures that need to be torn down in Detroit.  Lot of them are brick.  Bricks can be easily reclaimed, but it requires labor...There is also metal buried deep in the structures that urban miners didn't get to...There are probably also some fixtures that might be salvaged...

 

Oddly, there are hundreds of thousands of people just wandering around Detroit with nothing to do...

 

There will also be vast empty fields that could support crops, orchards, grazing, farm animals and all manners of agriculture...

 

Some of the roads near Detroit are impassible...I made the mistake of trying to go to "Northland" mall the other day.  I had to put on my hazard lights as I could only travel about 10 MPH down the road and had to swerve from lane to lane to avoid bottoming out.  I've never seen a paved road in as bad a condition as this! 

 

Vast areas of the city are already abandoned and reverting to nature...people could go in and chop down the vegetation....

 

Lots of city parks are shut down...could be reopened with a little money and a LOT OF LABOR.

 

So two suggestions:

 

A). If you are able bodied and on the dole, you need to work 3 days a week at demolition, gardening, road building etc.

 

B). If you are NOT on the dole and need something to do...work for the civic program, get $25 a day, a meal, and maybe learn some skills.  You put in a full 8 hour day, you get paid at the end of the day.  Work one day or a hundred...only requirement is that you put in a full day.

 

Unfortunately, the powers that be would probably not agree with this at all...

[rkbabang]

Hey all:

 

The illegal drug industrial complex is much larger than most people realize...

 

Just think how many people are employed in the criminal justice system just to deal with drug problems...Judges, lawyers, guards, jailers, probation officers, etc.  I would think that amounts to hundreds of billions per year.

 

If drugs were legalized, 85% of these people would lose their jobs.  What would happen to inner cities?  What would happen to the people in the "justice" system?

 

Think of how many people in the inner city are employed directly, OR indirectly in drug trafficking.  If dealing drugs was no longer a possibility how would they get money?  Would they have to get "regular" jobs?

 

A lot of things would change, that is for sure!

 

I think it would be a very good thing. I would love to see all those people doing something more beneficial to the civilization. I think this is a case of the broken window fallacy.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

 

Exactly.  I'd much rather see them doing something constructive rather than destructive.  Hell, paying them to dig ditches and fill them back in again, wouldn't be constructive, but at least it wouldn't be destructive, so it would be an improvement.

[writser]

I hate to go back on-topic but the latest issue of the economist featured a couple of interesting articles and interviews on prostitution:

 

www.economist.com/news/leaders/21611063-internet-making-buying-and-selling-sex-easier-and-safer-governments-should-stop

www.economist.com/news/briefing/21611074-how-new-technology-shaking-up-oldest-business-more-bang-your-buck

www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2014/08/interview-sex-worker

 

I thought these were good articles. Practical approach & no preaching.

 

The prospect of being pressed to mend their ways makes prostitutes less willing to seek care from health or social services. Men who risk arrest will not tell the police about women they fear were coerced into prostitution. When Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalised indoor prostitution between 2003 and 2009 the state saw a steep decline in reported rapes and cases of gonorrhoea.

 

Prostitution is moving online whether governments like it or not. If they try to get in the way of the shift they will do harm. Indeed, the unrealistic goal of ending the sex trade distracts the authorities from the genuine horrors of modern-day slavery (which many activists conflate with illegal immigration for the aim of selling sex) and child prostitution (better described as money changing hands to facilitate the rape of a child). Governments should focus on deterring and punishing such crimes—and leave consenting adults who wish to buy and sell sex to do so safely and privately online.

[stahleyp]

alright, rk, sorry about the delay.

 

I've been busy with work and, on a happier note, went out with a really attractive oncologist yesterday. ;)

 

I finally got the chance to read your link/essay.

 

I can't say I really disagree with it. However, it doesn't really answer the point I was originally thought about: that if our "empathy" is simply an evolutionary instinct, we should avoid it when the consequences put us in a logically worse position. Since there is really no "good" or "bad" in the world, it is silly doing "good" things when they harm us. Sure we can give money to a poor person and we feel "good" that we are doing "good". However, once we realize that the feeling is simply a chemical reaction based upon our evolutionary instincts we should stop doing those "good" things.

 

 

[stahleyp]

Once we realize that helping others is simply an instinct and that "goodness' doesn't exist

 

This makes no sense. Things can exist even if they are evolutionary adaptations. Anchoring bias is a heuristic programmed into us by evolution because it's quick and works in most situations we would encounter in the simpler society where our bodies evolved over tens of thousands of years. Is anchoring bias not real? Thinking is just an electro-chemical phenomenon that takes place in the brain, something that we can clearly observe with all kinds of equipment, and we can see how it changes or stops if we damage various parts of the brain. Yet thinking is still real. It doesn't need to be magical and supernatural to exist.

 

Ethics are real, even if they only come from human thinking; just like love is real, even if all love would disappear if all sentient thinking disappeared too. Thousands of years ago, less sophisticated civilizations with no good methodology (science) to figure out how things work attributed everything to the supernatural, but we've moved passed that now; I just wish more people would realize it.

 

There's a quote I like about a

ll this: "Yes, you could say that it is all just a game evolution has programmed us to play, but it's an important game for those so programmed."

 

Anchoring bias is real. However, once we realize the bias, we should correct it. Otherwise, we are simply following our emotions and that is holding us back from achieving full human potential.

 

Ethics are simply a byproduct of evolution. They aren't perfect. Our emotions (based on evolution) influence in less than optimal way. Just look at the investment world.

 

Here's another way to look at it.

 

Let's say a doctor, we'll call him Ted, can prescribe one of two drugs. Both are legal and no harm will be done to the doctor. The end results for health are the same (after side effects subside)

 

Drug A: inexpensive, no side effects

Drug B: 40% more expensive than drug A and several side effects.

 

Let's also assume that the doctor gets more money from the insurance or drug company for prescribing Drug B.

 

Now, throughout his career the doctor frequently put his patients' needs first. And, it's cost him quite a bit, financially. Another doctor, Jimbo, in the same complex almost always gives Drug B to the clients. The patients know no better and trust their respective doctors. Further, Jimbo gets much acclaim from the hospital since he's a bigger revenue producer than the Ted. This creates some bitterness in the heart of Ted. Ted knows he's a better doctor but resents the lower pay and acclaim. However, Ted follows his "conscience" and feels that he's doing the right thing.

 

Now, let's say Ted realizes that his conscience is only a by product of evolution. There is nothing more to it or bigger than that. Essentially, his "good deeds" are no better or worse than Jimbo's in the grand scheme of things - just one evolutionary instinct vs another.

 

Jimbo's brian just isn't wired that way. Why would Ted, realizing that he kinda got screwed by evolution, not change his path and be more like Jimbo?

[ERICOPOLY]

However, once we realize that the feeling is simply a chemical reaction based upon our evolutionary instincts we should stop doing those "good" things.

 

 

Only if you believe it's pointless to do things merely because they make us feel good.

 

I believe that we are all going to die and just be returned to dust.  Nothing beyond that.

 

So all we have in this life is to try to feel good about ourselves and experience joy.  Fortunately, we can get that from helping others due to these social instincts that are within us. 

 

We can love and help others and if that makes us feel good, it doesn't make it pointless!  Exactly the opposite.

 

Knowing it's all due to brain chemicals is interesting... but it does not take away the pleasure of feeling good. 

 

It's like... knowing that physics can explain something about hitting a baseball over the fence does not make it less fun to do so.

[stahleyp]

Eric,

 

I think I'll have to disagree. At least, if I'm being honest.

 

If I believed - and I mean truly, deeply believed - that my actions that I thought were "good" weren't really good, I don't see how that really could make a person happy. The reason we do "good" things is because we think they're good. Once we really believe they're not - that illusion goes away.

 

I'd guess that the only reason someone would be happy, given that situation, is that they didn't really believe their own argument.

 

Once you know a magic trick isn't really magic, after believing it was magic, it's hard to go back to the original viewpoint.

 

Another way to look at this.

 

Let's say we hooked all of us to a machine. All day long the machine would produce the chemicals they made us feel happiness - love, admiration, hope, etc. Further, the machine would do it in such a way where we would never get tired of these emotions.

 

If we could measure the amount of happiness produced by this machine in a lifetime, it would be more than the happiness of any human ever lived - multiple times over. The happiness is just as real as what we experience now - only a chemical reaction.

 

Would a life like this be more worth living than the current one? There is much more joy, admiration, love etc than the current one.  Let's say someone gave you that option to be permanently attached to the machine for the rest of your life. Would you take it?

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric,

 

I think I'll have to disagree. At least, if I'm being honest.

 

If I believed - and I mean truly, deeply believed - that my actions that I thought were "good" weren't really good, I don't see how that really could make a person happy. The reason we do "good" things is because we think they're good. Once we really believe they're not - that illusion goes away.

 

Have you never masturbated?  Is there some greater cause other than pleasure?  Does it only feel good to you because you believe you are doing a "good" thing?

 

 

 

Once you know a magic trick isn't really magic, after believing it was magic, it's hard to go back to the original viewpoint.

 

 

Once you've seen a movie before, you might experience boredom the second time around.  You already know the ending.  No suspense.

 

 

Would a life like this be more worth living than the current one? There is much more joy, admiration, love etc than the current one.  Let's say someone gave you that option to be permanently attached to the machine for the rest of your life. Would you take it?

 

I probably wouldn't give it up without a fight -- you should see us try to take the iPad from our kids :-)

 

It's difficult to say that I would give up my life for such a thing, but just remember people commute hours each day and live unhappy lives believing that a little bit more money will make them happy.  I think they are chasing this very machine, only they can't attain it.

 

But I think we are evolved to feel good by helping others -- the survival of the social unit is important for the passing on of our own genes.  We individually have better success through cooperation.  So for better or worse, we can be happy without such a machine.  Turning down the machine then might not be too crazy since we are programmed to think about others too, and not just ourselves in isolation.  So, perhaps I would opt to stay with my family and social unit instead, and that would make me happy enough (knowing I hadn't abandoned them for a greater, yet selfish, pleasure).

 

It's nuanced.  THat's what the social instincts do to us -- they make it nuanced... sometimes you'll put the group before yourself, and even that will feel good because we have instincts to survive individually but also to ensure group survival.

 

[stahleyp]

Eric,

 

If you define goodness as simply something that's pleasurable, your loyalty to your wife is no more "good" than someone else's adultery. Both are simply trying to maximize pleasure.

 

In my mind, and I think in yours, too, "goodness" is more than pleasure. In fact, goodness can actually can cause strife in many situations.

 

I do wonder why you wouldn't give up your life for such a thing. After all the question was designed with your qualifications for a fulfilling life in mind. I agree you might stay to fulfill your family obligations. However, remember, the negative emotions associated with that situation would be removed.

 

By the way, you guys should have more than one iPad you cheap son of a gun. You have like $25 million!!! ;)

[ERICOPOLY]

If I believed - and I mean truly, deeply believed - that my actions that I thought were "good" weren't really good, I don't see how that really could make a person happy. The reason we do "good" things is because we think they're good. Once we really believe they're not - that illusion goes away.

 

Perhaps the brain chemicals are what tell you what is good, and what is bad.  Perhaps instincts govern the production and release of these chemicals.  You somehow assume that you are making a conscious choice over this... that you first have the opportunity to think if your actions were really good or bad before the chemical release happens -- why do you have that belief?

 

Instincts drive the release of them to your brain, you feel euphoric, and say "damn, I did a good thing today.  that good deed made me feel great".  You didn't first observe the dopamine meter on the machine rise -- you just experienced it positively and it set the tone for you to experience that as "good feeling" and equated that with your deed as a "good deed".  Are there good deeds that make us feel bad?

 

You save somebody's life -- you just feel good.  It's not like you feel lousy afterwards after you find out that "good" was triggered by production of dopamine.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

If you define goodness as simply something that's pleasurable, your loyalty to your wife is no more "good" than someone else's adultery. Both are simply trying to maximize pleasure.

 

Pleasure is the experience of the good brain chemicals.

 

Again, this is very nuanced.  We have both selfish instincts and social instincts.

 

About social instincts... social animals evolved to work together in social units.  Instincts prevent us from feeling good about causing harm to others in our social unit.

 

In your example, you mention cheating on the wife.  Why this doesn't unequivocally equate to pleasure because of what I just mentioned about the social instincts.

 

I might fall on a hand grenade to save my buddies in my platoon -- I am driven to do so by a social instinct, even though it's not the selfishly most optimal outcome.  Just like I might forego a blow-job from the secretary... it's not the best for my personal short-term pleasure, but our minds are complicated by our instincts to help the social unit.

 

When you violate what those social instincts are telling you, you experience guilt.  So you can take the blowjob and feel good for the moment, and feel guilty afterwards.  Or forego the short-term pleasure to avoid the guilt.  Instincts often drive us to avoid the short-term pleasure in order to keep the social unit happy (the wife) -- our instincts reward us by not punishing us with guilt.

[ERICOPOLY]

By the way, you guys should have more than one iPad you cheap son of a gun. You have like $25 million!!! ;)

 

It would be that much were it not for the taxes paid along the way.  Perhaps a shade under.

[ERICOPOLY]

I agree you might stay to fulfill your family obligations. However, remember, the negative emotions associated with that situation would be removed.

 

I agree, but... "you can't get there from here".

 

Like I said, I might not want to be unplugged once on the machine.  But I hesitate and choose my family over the machine due to the social instincts kicking in.  Guilt (driven by the social instincts) makes me turn the machine down -- the guilt is triggered by the implication of social group abandonment/betrayal.

 

It would be hard to choose the machine over them in the first place... 

 

You could do it if you suffered from less social attachment.  Perhaps people who are abandoned early in life have trouble forming attached relationships, and for them it would be easier as they are not as close to a social group.  You could act more selfishly if you were alone... or felt a lack of belonging despite living amongst others.

 

 

[stahleyp]

If I believed - and I mean truly, deeply believed - that my actions that I thought were "good" weren't really good, I don't see how that really could make a person happy. The reason we do "good" things is because we think they're good. Once we really believe they're not - that illusion goes away.

 

Perhaps the brain chemicals are what tell you what is good, and what is bad.  Perhaps instincts govern the production and release of these chemicals.  You somehow assume that you are making a conscious choice over this... that you first have the opportunity to think if your actions were really good or bad before the chemical release happens -- why do you have that belief?

 

Instincts drive the release of them to your brain, you feel euphoric, and say "damn, I did a good thing today.  that good deed made me feel great".  You didn't first observe the dopamine meter on the machine rise -- you just experienced it positively and it set the tone for you to experience that as "good feeling" and equated that with your deed as a "good deed".  Are there good deeds that make us feel bad?

 

You save somebody's life -- you just feel good.  It's not like you feel lousy afterwards after you find out that "good" was triggered by production of dopamine.

 

I don't deny any of this. I don't deny the release happens without thinking about it. I'm simply saying that, once we realize what causes the release, we can can counter it.

 

I've used this example before, but the I'll bring it up again. Our evolutionary instincts cause us to crave fat and sugar. After eating fat and sugar, we feel better (the chemical release). 

 

The evolutionary instincts puts us into a worse position (weight gain). Now that I know all that desire is simply a byproduct of evolution,  I can help fight it. I can use the same thought process when any other evolutionary instinct puts me into a worse situation (saving a stranger's life or giving to charity). The stranger puts my life in danger (lowers my probability of survival) and charity reduces my networth. Neither of these are ideals situations.

 

It took some time, but I've conquered (for the most part) the fat and sugar desire. I'm now in the best shape of my adult life. I see no reason, assuming your worldview is correct, to not also conquer the other evolutionary instincts (like guilt) that put any of us in a worse position.

 

by the way, Eric, maybe it's harder to leave them for a bigger reason then a chemical reaction firing off in your brain. ;)