TED Conversations

Nicole Small

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Asexuality: An Ideal Future?

I've recently realized that nearly all the information about sexuality I've observed has failed to touch on a very important orientation. Many people either fail or refuse to consider asexuality a sexual orientation since there are so many opinions as to exactly what it is. Many believe that Nikola Tesla was asexual. That theory, I believe, should be considered more carefully.
Could asexuality be a path for human evolution? By asexuality, I'm referring to the most logical definition (for procreation purposes.) According to a Wikipedia interpretation, it could be viewed as having no uncontrollable sexual/reproducing urges, yet still possessing the ability to do so if necessary. Some prefer to be involved in a romantic relationship, but don't feel sexual urges nearly as often as the average person. On most occasions, when aroused, an asexual person might prefer D.I.Y.
There are many reasons why a person might feel this way towards sex, however, asexuality due to an overactive mind is the preferred cause. As an example, Tesla was supposedly "celibate" his entire life. In turn, he accomplished more than most of us can comprehend. If only everyone was so productive. Hans Rosling, in his TED Talk, "The Magic Washing Machine" addressed the revolution that the washing machine brought about for women's education. By freeing so much time, women were able to dedicate themselves to activities like reading and learning.
Sex takes up FAR more time in our lives than we might realize. We are much like the domestic house cat. When in "heat," the female will "flaunt." The male, in response begins to "prowl." This is reflected in humans as females decorating themselves (spending many hours and dollars) and males constantly searching....all with one thing in mind, regardless of whether or not they act out in the end. Is asexuality just an abnormality in the thinking process or could it create a biological branch from the current path of evolution? Would it be beneficial or harmful?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: Part Three-
    "Is it possible, then, that inside of the photons, we'll discover more hidden information like a quantum blueprint? Can our brains create the technology to use as a receiver and processor for this information so that we understand what it's saying? Is technology an external extension of the brain, itself? Is technology part of our evolutionary process that will allow the consciousness to have no physical boundaries? I believe that the key to evolution is entirely centered around the brain and has little to do with the body (beyond physical survival.) If no one ever died, what would be the reason for procreation? Could the information within light be creating the physical world and conscious minds who would then use technology as a step in carrying out the "grand design?" If light contains information, then we need to learn the language of this information and design a way to understand it. Technology is an extension of the brain that is tuned to receive and interpret different types of information in many different codes or "languages." Technology interprets these "languages" so that our brains can understand it."
    • Aug 25 2012: If every wave held the blueprint for it's own existence as matter, maybe we could start looking for the "wave riding the wave" so to speak?

      Everything may exist potentially, until the act of observation "crystallizes" it into matter. It might take only a tiny amount of energy to start this, like a minute flaw in the surface of water causing a cup to boil over when superheated. Matter may be a rule-limited cascading phase change effect initiated by the act of observation. When I say "observation" I don't mean just human observation, I refer to the presence of matter causing this effect itself. Interesting to think about at least.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: What you're saying- about the wave within the wave is exactly what I'm referring to. That internal "wave" could be transmitted information that is waiting for us to receive it, process it and understand it in this new "language." I'm only suggesting the possibility of blueprint-type information existing within the light. It's a wild theory, I know, but this is the very reason why I consider Science to be my "religion." Science- in and of itself indicates multiple possibilities. There are multiple dimensions and maybe multiple universes, etc.
        I think what you're talking about with crystallization is similar to a fractal pattern on a quantum level. As far as "observation" goes, I believe that matter is considered "observed" when light interacts with it. It sounds like that's what you were saying, but I just wanted to simplify it a little further.
        • Aug 26 2012: Hmm, as a child I wondered if there were another digital wave riding electromagnetic sine waves, if so it might be of a very low amplitude, so not easily detectable. Life is expressed through DNA which is both digital(base4) and analog(protein), might that stretch further than DNA and be more a universal rule? If not, then how the heck did DNA's ACGT ever emerge from an analog universe? Might matter itself be coded in this way on a much smaller scale? Just posing questions I have no answers to, but it's interesting to think about sometimes.
    • thumb
      Aug 26 2012: I think I understand a little more about why you consider "Science" your religion.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: Thanks. I consider myself almost ultra-science-minded. I understand that I have a very uncommon belief-system. Though I base my beliefs off of scientific discoveries and theories, the science I choose to comprehend/study is on a quantum scale- not macro. It can't be observed without the aid of technology.
    • Aug 26 2012: Light can carry information, just as a sequence of 0's and 1's can carry information for a computer, however a random string of 0's and 1's have no meaning without design by a human, similarly light from the big bang would only carry meaning if it were intelligently designed... In order for you to believe the theory you described above you must believe in intelligent design at this fundamental level.

      also the energy and inert matter you refer to as receiving the message of the light would have to have been intelligently designed in order to receive this coded light in some sort of meaningful manner. Same goes with the human eye/brain receiver.

      I don't mean to be cruel, but this is not science, it raises more questions than answers, and they are questions that aren't based on any observable facts, ie. they are not hypotheses but speculations on cosmic destiny, or as you put it, grand design.

      You seem like a nice person Nicole, I don't want to crush your spirit, or belittle you, but yes, I think I also understand a little more about why you consider science your religion.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: I'm not saying that there is other "information" (besides photons, which the brains receive and process as information; translating it into a "language" we understand) in the light from the BB, but I'm saying it's not beyond the realm or spectrum of possibilities. I'm also not arguing that there is a god. I'm saying that maybe not ALL of human INTUITION will be proven wrong.
        We might communicate to computers with 1's and 0's, but I think photons communicate with us in a different language on a quantum level. I believe, in essence, that we (consciousness) came from quantum information and in the end will become quantum information within light.
        • Aug 26 2012: Ok, so you're stepping out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy which I can respect as an exercise of the imagination.

          I leave you with a friendly warning: Nothing is beyond the realm or spectrum of possibilities. Not God, not the flying spaghetti monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage), nothing!

          Philosophy as a thought exercise is fine, philosophy as a way of life will lead to emptiness.

          You cannot base your life on possibility, for all is possible. Life must be based on probability, nothing has meaning otherwise.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.