Poignant short story about truth-seeking that I just found. Quote:
"No," interjected an internal voice. "You need to prove that your dad will appear by a direct argument from the length of your nails, one that does not invoke your subsisting in a dream state as an intermediate step."
"Nonsense," retorted another voice. "That we find ourselves in a dream state was never assumed; rather, it follows so straightforwardly from the long-nail counterfactual that the derivation could be done, I think, even in an extremely weak system of inference."
The full thing reads like a flash tour of OB/LW, except it was written in 2001.
Blatantly obvious counterexamples include forced reproduction and rape. Less blatantly obvious counterexamples include masturbation and bacon double-cheeseburgers, though these don't apply to your amended version. The fact that we have the capacity to experience hedonic pleasure because it was adaptive does not mean we experience hedonic pleasure as a direct result of acting to increase our inclusive genetic fitness.
It may very well fit the story like a glove, but that doesn't make it any less egregious of a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. She's hedonically happier, and she seems to have increased her odds of reproducing; direct causality does not seem present. If her amazing new boyfriend is sterile, it isn't really going to change the equation that much.
I'm skeptical of Roissy's claim, but I'm not sure your examples are as obvious or convincing as you seem to think.
Unless I'm extremely atypical (which is possible), it is incorrect to say that superstimulant foods and masturbation bring happiness. They bring contentment, which is different and less satisfying. To the extent that this is a definitional dispute, the happiness they bring is far weaker and far more evanescent compared to e.g. feeling like part of a group, feeling like you've "made a difference", etc.
Next, regarding forced reproduct... (read more)