"A world without love", (dystopian future suggested in articles?)

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
"A world without love", now where have we all heard that phrase before?, (I'll just add I'm not referring to my own life, especially with all the love lavished upon me on this forum!).

I'm prompted to refer to the phrase partly because of a magazine article I found in a reputable UK newspaper pack, where two women put forward their views on "modern romantic relationships" under the headings "As a default, monogamy is coming to an end, couples dating is the new normal", and "My first threesome was very positive, I didn't feel like an accessory",

However, as we all know too newspapers use titillation to amuse readers and sell their product, just as many other commercial organisation do, so its nothing new close to valentines day đŸ„°đŸ˜, and not to be taken too seriously, (or is it?).

It does make you scratch your head and wonder doesn't it, in this s*x obsessed world, where the many good people will end up, if the ideology being fed in newspaper articles lie this one really does become as mainstream as it pretends to be already.
 

win231 said:
I only heard the phrase in a song written by Paul McCartney for Peter & Gordon.
Click to expand...
It may have its origins in the work of Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World", (or even centuries earlier?), quote:
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/A-World-Without-Love-Is-A-Deadly-F3MZM5VKRY3Q

"“A world without love is a deadly place" serves as a warning to the doomed society of the World State in this new world.

In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, "pain, suffering, and unhappiness are virtually unknown because basic needs are provided for all, and soma tablets are readily available should anyone feel anxious or sad". The civilization is equipped with a drug called soma. Soma is used to destroy any feeling of sadness or negative feelings; it is part of the society's method to pursue happiness. The pursuit of happiness is brought to a degree of such extremity that the citizens are "conceived in test tubes and socialized for specific societal roles" that they are genetically engineered to enjoy.

Not only are the citizens programmed to be content with their roles in the society, but their minds are formed by sleep training to believe that their only purposes in life are sexual pleasure and enjoying activities. The government raises them to have sexual interactions with whoever they want, whenever they want. A portion of their sleep training is "everyone belongs to everyone" (Huxley 205). The citizens do not experience the pleasure of love, nor do they experience friendship or family. After all, "without committed partners there is no pain associated with relationship breakup; but neither is there committed love. Without family ties there are no burdens of care but no joy of giving."
 
The work of George Orwell is mentioned in this article, (of course connected to the dystopian views):
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-...ll-its-aspects-failures-of-affection-in-1984/

Quote:
"To develop a health relationship between people we need all the emotions as they are the basis for an effective relationship.

In fact love is important in all facets of our lives, and love might be present in other aspects apart from relationships".

It is noticeable in Orwell's book "1984" the party seeks for relationships that can produce children as a duty rather than an act of pure love, and this might be detrimental because they may grow up with psychological issues".
 
Sorry to go on about Liberalism again....but all these 'Lefties' would say that they are motivated by love and compassion. All humans feel love, but that doesn't mean you have to lose touch with reality.
We are not robots, though the attitude of some politicians might make you think that we have become genderless androids.
 
Lavinia said:
Sorry to go on about Liberalism again....but all these 'Lefties' would say that they are motivated by love and compassion. All humans feel love, but that doesn't mean you have to lose touch with reality.
We are not robots, though the attitude of some politicians might make you think that we have become genderless androids.
Click to expand...
Avoiding politics here of course, the weekend newspaper referred to in the OP, where the magazine article appeared here in the UK over the weekend, is a mainstream supporter of a generally different view to the one you suggest.
 
More expert opinion to ponder:
https://www.psycom.net/divorce

Quote:
"But for those who do wind up divorced, there seems to be a magic number for when. According to Dr. Fisher, no matter where in the world you’re from or in what culture you’ve been raised, you’re most likely to get a divorce
drum roll
four years into your marriage.

Even more fascinating, she continues, is why. Our human brains have evolved to hone a drive for love and partnership that lasts just long enough to raise a single child through infancy.

Partnering allowed women to raise children and their male partners to provide for and protect them while the child was young.

After that? We are, as mammals, driven to procreate with more than one partner in order to have the strongest genetic legacy. “If you’re having children with two or three men rather than just one, you’re creating more genetic variety in your babies,” explains Fisher. In other words, for millions of years, some primitive form of divorce was probably an adaptive mechanism to create more genetic variety.

On a much smaller scale, in modern-day American culture, one divorce attorney says that she’s found the average age for divorce to be more like five-to-eight years into the marriage."
 
Yet more expert opinion:
https://womensinfidelity.com/marria...MI-92V-qSa_QIVgWDmCh0PXwWZEAMYASAAEgLW-fD_BwE

Quote:
"I've been immersed in women's infidelity issues for almost 20 years. I've written two books on the subject and I've also been coaching men and women through female infidelity issues for over a decade; and the truth is many of our societal beliefs about females are grossly distorted and some are just completely erroneous.

Unfortunately, society's preoccupation with male infidelity and male commitment issues has and continues to keep a light from being shined too closely on female infidelity and female commitment issues.

The media has finally begun to acknowledge, albeit to a small degree, the widespread problem of female infidelity. But to be clear, female infidelity is one of the most prevalent problems that couples are facing today in their relationships.

When people write and speak about why women cheat, they often regurgitate outdated information or intentionally leave out basic information — because it's not politically correct to talk about women's true s*xual nature.

However, without these missing pieces of information, it's impossible to understand, and to subsequently fix, many of the real problems couples are facing today in their relationships."
 
grahamg said:
More expert opinion to ponder:
https://www.psycom.net/divorce

After that? We are, as mammals, driven to procreate with more than one partner in order to have the strongest genetic legacy. “If you’re having children with two or three men rather than just one, you’re creating more genetic variety in your babies,” explains Fisher. In other words, for millions of years, some primitive form of divorce was probably an adaptive mechanism to create more genetic variety.

On a much smaller scale, in modern-day American culture, one divorce attorney says that she’s found the average age for divorce to be more like five-to-eight years into the marriage."
Click to expand...
Well, I know a German woman who lives at a neighbor village. She has 3 children from 3 men, two Germans and one American. Guess she married at least him since she has an English surname. Nevertheless she is a single parent for a lot of years. I don't think this to be the future of mankind. Much too often these "experts" are paid by the governments to spread their ideology. The end will be transhumanism, exactly what Klaus Schwab, the leader of the WEF is making propaganda for. They want to destroy regular families.
 
George1959 said:
The end will be transhumanism, exactly what Klaus Schwab, the leader of the WEF is making propaganda for. They want to destroy regular families.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Phoenix will rise from the ashes. A lot of folks suffered, not thrived in 'regular' families. I'd like to learn more about this, on it's face it doesn't necessarily sound scary or wrong. But, I don't know enough about it.
 
Trying to be a bit careful here, to keep the thread on track, but it appears to me that some children go to such an extent to denigrate one of their parents so that even any love that parent may have show towards them or the other parent before they were born the target parent is to be punished for feeling and showing.

I hope that isnt too convoluted an argument, though my thinking is that the rejected parent, no matter what they did or said can be damned by anyone suggesting they didnt do enough. This is especially by the child who isnt to know what "enough" is, even when they've been treated as well as humanly possible, because all they'll be able to think about is how much better the parent they lived with was, (likely to be re-enforced by the competitive nature of that parent).

You've a world without love in spades when children choose to vilify without restraint any parent without being able or willing to see the other side.
 
After that? We are, as mammals, driven to procreate with more than one partner in order to have the strongest genetic legacy.

Which ignores the fact that many animals mate for life. Notably its often the lower on the food chain prey animals who have more than one partner. Wolves, eagles and many other predators have lifemates.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top