= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on "NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (340)
IIRC that's more or less what Scott said near the end of his anti-reactionary FAQ. (That's also my position, except in most cases I'd weaken it to ‘probably no longer optimal’.)
Whut? Is northern sub-replacement fertility just because people aren't having sex?
Condoms.
Condoms have existed since ancient Egypt so they aren't new technology that the culture hasn't had a chance to adept to yet. In fact the way cultures tend to adept to condoms is by proscribing their use.
How recent are STD-preventing condoms?
(Not that condoms can prevent all STDs, of course: "A greater level of protection is provided for the diseases transmitted by genital secretions. A lesser degree of protection is provided for genital ulcer diseases or HPV because these infections also may be transmitted by exposure to areas (e.g., infected skin or mucosal surfaces) that are not covered or protected by the condom." (source))
Don't know, although I don't see why cotton or sheepskin condoms would be significantly less effective than modern ones. If the condom can stop the sperm, it can stop whatever else is in the semen.
No, a sperm cell is very substantially larger than a virus particle. Lambskin condoms have not been shown to be effective at blocking virus transmission.
Not that I don't believe you, but would you happen to have a source I could use for further reference?
Failing to find an actual paper that does more than mention in passing that they-re not shown effective - it just gets treated as common knowledge. Wikipedia's condom article references "Boston Women's Health Book Collective (2005). Our Bodies, Ourselves: A New Edition for a New Era. New York, NY: Touchstone. p. 333. ISBN 0-7432-5611-5."
Here's a nifty visualization of the scales involved: Cell Size and Scale
And not society has ever really practiced 100% for-life monogamy.
Everybody has abundant evidence that the world is an imperfect place, and everything in it, but we still keep coming up with these black-and-white theories.
But many societies have held 100% for-life monogamy as something you should do.
To put it another way, no society has ever had a murder rate of 0%, but that doesn't mean we should declare murder acceptable.
I was responding to a point about viability.