Human beings took our animal need for palatable food . . . and turned it into chocolate souffles with salted caramel cream. We took our ability to co-operate as a social species . . . and turned it into craft circles and bowling leagues and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. We took our capacity to make and use tools . . . and turned it into the Apollo moon landing. We took our uniquely precise ability to communicate through language . . . and turned it into King Lear.
None of these things are necessary for survival and reproduction. That is exactly what makes them so splendid. When we take our basic evolutionary wiring and transform it into something far beyond any prosaic matters of survival and reproduction . . . that’s when humanity is at its best. That’s when we show ourselves to be capable of creating meaning and joy, for ourselves and for one another. That’s when we’re most uniquely human.
And the same is true for sex. Human beings have a deep, hard-wired urge to replicate our DNA, instilled in us by millions of years of evolution. And we’ve turned it into an intense and delightful form of communication, intimacy, creativity, community, personal expression, transcendence, joy, pleasure, and love. Regardless of whether any DNA gets replicated in the process.
Why should we see this as sinful?
What makes this any different from chocolate souffles and King Lear?
Jul 142010
This reminds me of The Doctor, the first two paragraphs at least. Humanity is an interesting concoction.
What is “The Doctor”?
You should totally watch Doctor Who! David Tennent is a fox. :D
I’m betting Doctor Who … who is only known as The Doctor in the show … those do sound like things he would say about humanity.
That would definitely be Doctor Who :)
While I appreciate (and agree with) the use of indulgent food and artwork as analogies with sex, there’s one problem — those two things ARE seen as sinful by varying religious and conservative groups, seen not only in their religious practices, but in the way society portrays overweight people and consumers of artwork seen as remotely “societably questionable”.
But, even though certain kinds of art or food may be seen as sinful by those groups, most if not all engage in SOME kind of art, and eat SOME kind of food – and that food is not likely to be just nuts twigs and berries. There’s some cooking involved, and in general, people want food to taste good.
And, even the Catholic church – even the hardline Calvinist Protestants – have art in their churches. We like pretty things, as a species.