Glider

No worries, I had an advantage. I was born there (makes it easier to remember). These are Turkana. That's me, bottom left at the front.

I liked it It hits close to home here too though. I have Japanese knotweed growing in my garden and it's a constant battle trying to kill it. It's unbelievably tough! I also have a problem with American Grey squirrels. They dig up my trees in the autumn and and chew on their bark in the winter, damn them! On the other hand, I have many Japanese maple, Trident Maple, Japanese elm, Chinese elm, Pomigranate, Japanese Black Pine, Jack pine, Mugo pine and Satsuki and Kurume azaleas, none of which are UK natives and many of which can be found growing 'wild' here. I think the difference between 'foreign invader' and 'welcome guest' is entirely based on how they behave once they're here (or there). Siberian Elm and Callery Pear have both turned out to be invasive.

Compared to some with larger gardens, yes. But I'm one of those who choose to develop them from scratch, rather than buy predeveloped trees (I only have 5 that are from bonsai nurseries and even then they were only trunk developed and haven't reached the refining stage yet). Developing them from scratch takes more attention (and so more time), but I think it's more rewarding. Nope. I don't do winter well. Never seemed to get the hang of it, so I rely on self-medication (Jose Quervo). Yeah...I don't tend to do the rushing in for the kill thing, but SFN and coffee is my usual waking up ritual.

I like to spend 'me time' just wandering around my bonsai looking at the changes, musing on the next stage for each (but in a relaxed 'that might work' kind of way rather than writing fixed 'to-do' lists). Just enjoying them really. I might pick one out, put it on the turntable and study it in detail for another half an hour, but again, in a very relaxed way, not really thinking about anything in particular. I sometimes get really good ideas for non-related things during these times. That'll normally see me for a cup of coffee or two and is a nice way to wind down in the summer. I only have 45 or so, but as they're living things, they're always changing, so I never get bored with them. In the winter, I just drink heavily.

This makes no sense. It’s like saying anybody who answers the question ‘Is racism indicative of a reasonable and valid world view?’ is accepting that racism is good or valid simply by virtue of answering the question, regardless of their answer. No inferences concerning a person’s beliefs can be made from the act of answering a question. Such inferences can only be made from their answers. ”Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.”(from Wikipedia). This would suggest that a question cannot be intellectually dishonest and asking a question is not intellectual dishonesty because in asking a question, no rhetoric is used and no case or argument in support of anything is presented. To make the question “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?” intellectually dishonest you would have to make several unfounded inferences: 1) That the question was in fact a statement 2) That the question was asked in order to advance an agenda 3) That the question was made in knowledge of overwhelming contrary evidence. One is clearly false. Two is possible, but the fact that 1 is false makes 2 unlikely as questions do not present an argument in support of anything. Three is unlikely because if the questioner was aware of overwhelming evidence either way, the question would be redundant (and to think otherwise in the absence of any evidence is mere conjecture). Another reason a question cannot be intellectually dishonest is that it can be answered. In this thread, the question “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?” has been answered (generally) ‘no’. As YT points out, there is some evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old. This is foolish, inflammatory and irrelevant to the central point. The burden of proof is not mine and it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of the null hypothesis being a sensible default in the absence of evidence in support of the alternative. I am free to reject hypotheses until there is evidence presented in support of them without it being labelled an act of faith. There is some evidence for it. What? All evidence for life has a beginning, or all life has a beginning? And some (presumably living) question a beginning for life? What are you talking about? You are not making any sense. I think you are confused. The original question was “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?”. This has been answered; ‘no’, so I’m uncertain why you are talking about ‘crazy creationists’, in spite of the fact that the general consensus here seems to be that belief in creationism cannot be classed as a mental disorder, and why you think using an inflammatory tone lends weight to your arguments. A flippant dismissal of the point which is that the term 'delusion' is simply a term used to describe an erroneous belief. Why do you persist with the implication (even here) that the term ‘delusion’ refers to a psychological pathology? The term is not specific to Psychology or Psychiatry. The absence of any evidence that a thing does not exist is not evidence that it does exist and so cannot be used to refute the argument that belief in that thing is a delusion. Yes, we do, but you seem to be using the term ‘theory’ in the same way as creationists (ID) use it. A theory is a proposed explanation for some natural phenomenon. Gravity is a natural phenomenon and the idea of gravitons is simply one model proposed as an explanation. As with all hypotheses, it will stand or fall on its own merits depending on whether evidence in support of it can be found or not. The same cannot be said for hypotheses concerning God. But again, this is irrelevant to the central point. This must be the bit where you get sincere and reasonable in an attempt to be convincing, which might stand a better chance if it were in the slightest bit relevant to the original question and if you hadn’t already pissed me off. The original question was “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?”. The point of this post is that you termed the original question a ‘tactic’ and have subsequently accused it of being intellectually dishonest. In doing so, you have unjustifiably transformed the original post from a simple question into a statement intended to advance an agenda, made in the knowledge that the statement is false and in the face of contrary evidence. Here is where the only absurdity lies and at best, it makes your argument a strawman. As an aside, your argument also contains some inconsistency (albeit irrelevant to the central point). For example, your assertion that you love science ” Look, I love science, is inconsistent with your discussing evidence for the non-existence of a thing as if it were a sensible concept: ” There is no contradictory evidence of god so it's not a delusion”; ” You have evidence there is no god?”. Loving a thing usually involves knowing something about it. Back to the point. Your entire ‘tactic’ argument seems based on the belief that the original poster is pushing the agenda that those who believe in creationism are suffering from a mental disorder, as opposed to simply asking the question. As far as I can see, you have no grounds for this assumption (which extends far beyond any data available in the original post). You simply drew a conclusion and presented a contrary (and largely irrelevant) case to a non-existent argument (and in an unnecessarily inflammatory manner). Instead of jumping to an unfounded conclusion, it would have been more reasonable just to ask the original poster: agentchange By asking your question, are you suggesting that people who believe in creationism are suffering from a mental disorder, or are you simply asking for people’s opinions?

What tactic? WordNet - delusion noun 1. (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. 2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea... 3. the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas. (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.) As I've said a few times, anybody can harbour a delusion on any number of things and it's not in and of itself a sign of a disorder, nor should its use be used to imply or infer such. 'Delusion' is just a word used to describe an erroneous belief that is resistant to change in the face of contradictory evidence. By any definition of the word, belief in creationism (particularly 'young earth' creationism) is a delusion, so how is its use a 'tactic', and to what end?

Very few people get taken to hospital for 'startled'. In that context the media will be using the term in the medical sense. They simply may not be aware that they are. It wasn't strictly a misuse at the time the term was originated. A nasty shock (in the original medical sense, i.e. Meaning "a sudden and disturbing impression on the mind" ) can result in neurocardiogenic Syncope (aka vasovagal syncope) or fainting (which is a more severe event than most people believe). The physiological events in fainting are the first steps towards clinical shock. It was when people noticed that after a severe 'shock' (i.e. psychologically traumatic event) people would sometimes die, even though there were no signs of physical injury (or none severe enough to be fatal), that they were deemed to have died of 'the shock' and the term stuck. It's not stictly a misuse as it is still used to describe the psychophysiological results of the original term.

Unfortunately, there are many such 'cures' available and people will pay high prices for them (and not just financial). They are particularly popular in (but not restricted to) East Africa, India and South America. (see here, and here and this bit on colonial mentality).

Clinical shock refers basically to a loss of blood to critical organs and tissues, particularly the brain. This can either be due to haemorrhage (hypovolemic shock), or a vasovagal response that diverts blood away from the brain (distributive shock). In either case, a significant drop in blood pressure results, and the damage is done by a lack of blood (i.e. O2 and critical subtrates) to organs and tissues. The outward signs are what one would expect under these circumstances: Blanched (white) appearance; cold, clammy skin; signs of cyanosis (in severe cases, like blue lips and sclera that signal hypoxia) fast, weak pulse; confusion; loss of consciousness and eventually death.

Yes, quite a large number of river fish can. Those that live in murky water have evolved to see in IR, like carp, pirahna and so-on. Goldfish (a type of carp) can see from UV to IR.

I think you're right, and I doubt there's sufficient build-up of biomass to become petrolium deposits. The black smoker ecosystems are transient, 'crawling' along the ocean bed as the tectonic plates shift (look for example at the 'chain' of Hawaiian islands). Any particular ecosystem lasts only for a comparatively short period of time (some hundreds to a few thousand years) before the smokers die and anything around them that can move has to go and find somewhere else.

Yes, there are sevaral patents out for the use of snake venom as an analgesic. There are also trials on snake venom as clotting agents, anticoagulants, cancer treatments, alzheimer's treatments, analgesics for arthritis sufferers and it also has many diagnostic uses too, particularly in haematology. (See here, here and here.

Eye Pathological responses of the human eye to excessive UVR exposure include photokeratitis and photoconjunctivitis (inflammation of the cornea and the conjunctiva, respectively). Repeated exposure is considered to be a major factor in the causation of non-malignant clinical lesions of the cornea and conjunctiva such as climatic droplet degeneration (discrete areas of yellow protein deposits in the cornea and conjunctiva), pterygium (an overgrowth of the conjunctiva on to the cornea) and, probably, pinguecula (small yellow growths in the conjunctiva). Damage can result from exposure to UVA, UVB and UVC. There is epidemiological evidence that chronic exposure of the eye to intense levels of UVR contributes to the development of cortical cataract. Evidence for a causal role of solar radiation in macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness) is conflicting. The extent to which UVR exposure is an important risk factor for cataracts in the general population is unclear, as is its relation to eye melanoma. There is good evidence that prolonged gazing at very bright light sources, particularly those emitting shorter wavelength blue light, causes retinal damage resulting in transient or permanent loss of visual acuity. Staring at the sun can damage the retina permanently. Such an effect would normally be prevented by the natural aversion response invoked by looking at a bright light, but this response can be intentionally suppressed. Similar damage has also been induced in the non-human primate retina following acute exposure, particularly to blue light. It is not clear to what extent UVA is involved as its transmission through the lens is low in adults but is higher in children.(bold added) (Documents of the NRPB: Volume 13, No. 1. Health Effects from Ultraviolet Radiation: Report of an Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation.).

Plus, true UV is very bad for your retinas.

'Delusional' is not really a clinical term, although it has a clinical use. Anybody can be deluded, it simply means to hold a false belief that is resistant to change even in the face of evidence to the contrary. For example, white supremacists are deluded. Clinically, delusions are usually wildly irrational (e.g. 'they're beaming thoughts into my head' or 'my dragon only eats jam') and are usually a symptom of some other underlying psychopathology.

It begged for it. You did not originate this thread from a neutral perspective in order to enquire. Your original post can be accurately summed up thus: “Oh my God, look at what they are doing to these poor people! And they’re not even mad, they only have depression (for 30 years). How do they get away with it?”. That post (and your subsequent one) shows you have already prejudged ECT as a therapy, and moreover, the dismissive way you treat both depression and attempted suicide shows you have no understanding of the condition(s) for which it is used. I hear it too much and it pisses me off. Oh no What do you think this evidence is in support of? You would do well to read it yourself: Plain language summary The induction of a seizure (fit) for therapeutic purposes by the administration of an electrical stimulus (electroconvulsive therapy or ECT) remains a common treatment option for people with schizophrenia. This review pools data from 26 studies that included over 798 participants in receipt of this treatment. The evidence suggests that courses of ECT can, in the short term, result in an increase in global improvement for some people with schizophrenia.. Plain language summary The reviewers examined the effectiveness and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in elderly people with depression. The reviewers performed this review because antidepressant drugs often cause side-effects in elderly people which may limit the effectiveness of treatment . ECT therefore can be an important alternative to drug treatment for depressed elderly people. The reviewers searched the literature for well-conducted (randomised) studies, both comparing real ECT to simulated ECT and to antidepressants. Only three studies were found, which all had serious problems in their methods. At present, no firm conclusions can be drawn about whether ECT is more effective than antidepressants. Also, we cannot draw clear conclusions on the safety or side effects of ECT in elderly people with depression. Author's conclusions The case studies suggested that ECT may be of value in treating severe psychiatric disorders in mentally retarded patients, with similar indications as in general psychiatry. However, the lack of strong scientific evidence, besides complicated psychiatric assessment as well as ethical and legal issues, probably causes an unnecessarily limited use of ECT in these patients. Author's conclusions Our knowledge about ECT in adolescents and children is deficient, and randomised controlled trials are needed. ECT should be used with caution in this age group because of the lack of knowledge. However, bearing in mind the severity and complexity of illness of the patients treated, and the mild nature of most adverse events, the rate of improvement across disorders of 67% is heartening. . Well, you just provided a whole bunch in your links. However, here’s some more: Depression Studies of ECT in depression have used various control conditions for comparison, including "sham" ECT (e.g., all of the elements of the ECT procedure except the electric stimulus), tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), combinations of antidepressants and neuroleptics, and placebos. The efficacy of ECT has been established most convincingly in the treatment of delusional and severe endogenous depressions, which make up a clinically important minority of depressive disorders. Some studies find ECT to be of at least equal efficacy to medication treatments, and others find ECT to be superior to medication. Not a single controlled study has shown another form of treatment to be superior to ECT in the short-term management of severe depressions. It must be noted, however, that those studies that found ECT to be superior to medication were not designed to study the persistence of this advantage of ECT beyond the short term. Moreover, the available evidence suggests that relapse rates in the year following ECT are likely to be high unless maintenance antidepressant medications are subsequently prescribed. Several studies suggest that ECT reduces symptoms in severely depressed patients who previously have not responded to adequate trials of antidepressant medication. The literature also indicates that ECT, when compared with antidepressants, has a more rapid onset of action. Delusional Depression ECT is highly effective in the treatment of delusional depression. It is superior to either antidepressants or neuroleptics used alone and is at least as effective as the combination of antidepressants and neuroleptics. ECT is often effective in patients who have previously failed to respond to medication. The duration of therapeutic effect beyond the initial acute episode is not clear. Endogenous/Melancholic Depression The severe endogenous/melancholic depressions are characterized by early morning awakening, marked weight loss, psychomotor retardation and/or agitation, diurnal variation, and lack of reactivity. ECT is at least as effective as TCA and more effective than sham ECT in the short-term treatment of these severe endogenous/melancholic depressions. ECT appears to be more effective than MAOI in the treatment of severe depressions, but available studies have generally used relatively low MAO doses. There is evidence for the efficacy of ECT in those endogenous depressives who have not responded to an adequate trial of antidepressants. The long-term efficacy of ECT with endogenously depressed patients is not known. Other Depression The majority of depressed persons encountered in medical and psychiatric settings do not have the severe endogenous/melancholic or delusional depressions described above. ECT is not effective for patients with milder depressions, i.e., dysthymic disorder (neurotic depression) and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Patients with major depression that is nonendogenous/nonmelancholic have not yet been extensively studied. Because of this, it is unclear whether their response to ECT would be more like those with dysthymic disorders or those with endogenous/melancholic features. Acute Manic Episode ECT and lithium appear to be equally effective for acute mania, and either is superior to hospitalization without somatic therapy. A treatment regimen in which ECT is used for the acute episode, followed by lithium maintenance, does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of early relapse compared with lithium treatment alone. Schizophrenia Neuroleptics are the first line of treatment for schizophrenia. The evidence for the efficacy of ECT in schizophrenia is not compelling but is strongest for those schizophrenic patients with a shorter duration of illness, a more acute onset, and more intense affective symptoms. ECT has not been useful in chronically ill schizophrenic patients. Although ECT is frequently advocated for treatment of patients with schizophreniform psychoses, schizoaffective disorders, and catatonia, there are no adequate controlled studies to document its usefulness for these disorders. Other Disorders There are no controlled studies supporting the efficacy of ECT for any conditions other than those designated above (i.e., delusional and severe endogenous depression, acute mania, and certain schizophrenic syndromes). (National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. June 10-12, 1985). Also: “This systematic review has identified a substantial body of evidence concerning the effectiveness and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The evidence consistently shows that, in the short-term, ECT is an effective treatment for depression. ECT also leads to short term impairment of memory although it remains unclear for how long this persists. There is no evidence of structural brain damage due to ECT, nor is there any evidence of a negative short-term effect on all-cause or cause-specific mortality. Different doses and modes of application of ECT appear to show differences in efficacy and adverse acute effects. In general high efficacy is often obtained only at the cost of some increased risk of acute adverse effects in the short term. The subjective effects of ECT tend to be less severe and less easy to demonstrate than objective evidence of short-term impairment of memory.” (Geddes, J. 2002. Systematic review on effectiveness and adverse effects of ECT. The Research Findings Register. Summary number 820. Retrieved 25 July 2007, from http://www.ReFeR.nhs.uk/ViewRecord.asp?ID=820) I don’t see much by way of controversy here. Oh, really? And what would that be? You wouldn’t be suggesting it’s simply a method of torture or control for the psychologically vulnerable, would you? See above (and read it this time). The whole of humanity has a tainted past at some point. Medicine certainly does. That doesn’t mean we should dismiss it now. It was a FILM FFS! So was press-ganging into the navy. Let’s disband that too. Not these days, and informed consent is a legal requirement: see HERE. An interesting extract from that link is as follows: The idea of ECT is frightening to many people, thanks in part to its depiction in the film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Some may not know that muscle relaxants and anesthesia make it a safe, practically painless procedure. Some people who advocate legislative bans against ECT are former psychiatric patients who have undergone the procedure and believe they have been harmed by it and that the treatment is used to punish patients' misbehavior and make them more docile. This is untrue. It is true that many years ago, when psychiatric knowledge was less advanced, ECT was used for a wide range of psychiatric problems, sometimes even to control troublesome patients. The procedure was frightening for patients because it was then administered without anesthesia or muscle relaxants, and the uncontrolled seizures sometimes broke bones. Today, the American Psychiatric Association has very strict guidelines for ECT administration. This organization supports use of ECT only to treat severe, disabling mental disorders; never to control behavior. Spare me your paranoid ramplings and moral rectitude, at least until you can come up with a better treatment for the above conditions. You have yet to provide any evidence that the psychiatric profession is wrong. Just out of interest, what makes you think you are in a position to judge the psychiatric profession anyway?

There are many types of organisms that do this. Plants and trees, for example strip the hydrogen from water and combine it with carbon from CO2 (releasing O2). They do it quite quickly too. If you watch certain aquatic plants exposed to light, you can see them releasing streams of oxygen bubbles.

So? Why would you give ECT to a person with psychosis? ECT is not for psychosis and it's not supposed to be a punishment or anything. 'Just' had long term depression? What do you think clinical depression is like? Hayfever? Anyway, that's what ECT is for; severe depression and bipolar conditions involving mania. Why were you shocked? Surely that fact that they were prepared to pay for it and were willing participants in the treatment must tell you something? Are you sure? ..wasn't abnormal except for repeated attemps to kill themselves? Oh, well, that's ok then. Have you ever wondered what a person must feel like to want to kill themselves? It must have seemed like madness the first time someone suggested passing 200 - 360 Joules of electricity through the chest of someone with ventricular fibrilation as a last resort. However, this often has a visible effect (i.e. not dying) and so people tend to accept it now. ECT doesn't have such a visible effect, and it's to do with scary stuff like 'mental illness', and so it's considered barbaric and akin to witchcraft (except by the patients). It basically 're-sets' the brain (like a computer hard-boot). It is effective in bipolar disorders and severe depression. In bipolar disoprders, if given at the appropriate time, it can prevent a person from swinging from hypermania into the pits of despair (or visa versa) and in severe depression it can provide a relatively long term alleviation of the worst of the symptoms (like the urge to throw yourself under a train, for example). Well, I'm glad to see you approached the topic with an open mind and no preconceptions . ECT is legal because it's an effective therapy. It can't cure bipolar disorders or severe depression, but it is very effective at heading off the worst of the symptoms. If you are so easily mislead by the apparent 'brutality' of a theraputic procedure, you should check out some surgical procedures, especially some of the more extreme abdominal/gastrointestinal stuff. They're just peachy! I wonder why nobody complains about them? Could it be because they're medical (i.e. physical) and so they're 1) good, by definition, however brutal they might be, and 2) not to do with 'mental' stuff which is all a bit scary and clearly the fault of the person, who should just jolly well pull themselves together anyway! .

Also, you have the relatively recent findings of the ecosystems living around the black smokers found in the Marianas trench. They don't rely on sunlight for their primary energy, they rely on heat, methane and sulfur compounds released by the vents. Bacteria convert these to energery and form the basis of the food chain there.

I don't think it is cognitive dissonance (which isn't a mental disorder anyway, it's a mental state of conflict). Cognitive dissonance results from the conflict between two options. If you've ever been shopping and been confronted with two equally good but not identical bits of kit (anybody shopping for something like a laptop will understand this), your indecision is cognitive dissonanace. A more severe version is when, having bought a bit of kit, you see in another shop the same thing at a lower price, or a better thing at the same price. The feeling you get then is cognitive dissonance: you want to believe the thing you bought is the best kit or that you got the best deal, but you know it isn't and you haven't. You could argue that the same applies to creationists. They want to think they bought (into) the best bit of kit, but they 'know' they haven't. The rub here is that they don't know they haven't. Cognitive dissonance is quite strongly aversive and a powerful behavioural drive. In the laptop shopping example, people will often take their original choice back and get the other bit of kit, even if it costs them time, effort and money, just to get rid of the feeling. You don't see many examples of creationists taking their beliefs back and saying "Listen, I'm really sorry to mess you about, but I'd like to exchange this belief for the other one I saw.". I think belief in creationism could be classified as a delusion, where delusion is basically defined as a false belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary. Delusions aren't considered a mental disorder, but they are considered to to be symptoms of a more severe condition (e.g. the delusions of persecution common in schizophrenia). Generally speaking, to be a mental disorder a condition need to be disabling to some degree (i.e. to disrupt normal functioning in a negative way or to render the person unable to function in their society). Most creationists seem to get on fine in their own lives. So, if for no other reason than semantics, I would tend to agree with Richard Dawkins; creationism is a delusion.

Both cat and dog fleas can live on (i.e. feed on) both cats and dogs, but they need to be on their principle host to breed. However, only cat fleas bite humans, but they will only tend to do so if there is not other choice, (e.g. the cat is removed from the house). Even then, any bites you might get will be a few around the ankles. They can sustain themselves on human blood, but they can't breed (so will eventually die out) and they won't stay on a human, rather they'll take passing bites (which is why they tend to be restricted to the ankles). Of cats, dogs and humans, only humans are relatively hair free and sweat through their skin and cat and dog fleas don't like it those conditions.

I agree and I do take your point, there will still be a net release of CO2 from burning fossil fuel. I was just noting that the advantage in this case is that the same fossil fuel would, in effect, be getting burned twice (first as coal, then as biodeisel), which has to be an improvement on the current system of buring the coal once, and normal deisel once. In those terms, yes, you would still be releasing CO2 from fossil fuels, but there would be a net reduction compared to the current system, and any reduction, given the state of the current system, would be a good thing. Again, I agree with you. My referring to the oxygen released was really just noting the nature of the waste product from converting CO2 from burning coal into biodeisel. But that way, the coal would only be burnt once and people would still use deisel. However, I agree strongly with your tree idea. Given the proportion of any given tree that is carbon, I can't think of a more efficent way of locking up carbon in a useful form. Fast growing broadleafed softwood forests would lock up millions of tons of carbon per year (not only in the wood, think of the millions of tons of leaves that are grown and shed each year). Not only would burning the that timber be carbon neutral, but building things with it would make it carbon negative.

Not really, because, in effect, you'd be buring the same coal twice (i.e. once to produce the initial CO2 and then again from the biodeisel produced by the algae from the same initial CO2). So yes, you'd still be producing CO2, but not from burning both coal and deisel, it would be from the deisel only. Plus, the algae would release a lot of oxygen during photosynthesis.

Having no 'direct access' to ojective reality, what else could it be? Everything we experience; light, sound, texture, odour, temperature are all transduced by specific receptors into the same electromagnetic signal (action potentials). All action potentials are the same, i.e. those resulting from triggering photoreceptors in the retina, are the same as those evoked from triggering auditory cells in the cochlea. In order for us to be able to function in the world. these action potentials have to be reconstructed into representations of the original specific stimuli, and these representations combined into a representation of the immediate environment. For example, being able to generate a perception of a painful stimulus (say, a burn) is useless unless it's combined with the perceptions of what is causing it (say the visual representation of a hot iron), so we can respond in a meaningful way to the original sensation. We cannot move away from the sensation, we have to have a representation of what is causing it to respond adaptively. These 'immediate' representations are also combined with memory (stored representations). Otherwise nothing but what we are sensing at the moment would exist. I would never water my trees, because at the moment, I have no representation of them other than the stored representation that they exist. These stored representations are dynamic too. If they weren't, then again, I would never water my trees. The dynamism of the representation means I can account for the changes that occur since I last watered them. They were wet the last time a saw them. If that representation was static, I would not bother watering again. All these representations, the immediate and the stored are combined to make a dynamic, working model of the world (which is unique to me) and is held in the prefrontal areas of my brain. One of the unique characteristics of humans is that they can use this dynamic model to run abstract 'test' solutions. That is, they can abstract problems from external reality and run predictive scenarios mentally to select the most favourable, without having to implement each possible solution. This is essentially the difference between a tool user and a tool maker. A tool user will use what is to hand to solve an immediate problem. If there is nothing appropriate to hand, the problem remains unsolved. A tool maker will abstract the problem and run predictive mental scenarios that will result in the representation of a tool that doesn't yet exist, and then will go and make it.

That's true, but a lot of their energies are also channelled into not getting caught. Leaving a trail of spawn does not further that objective. Apart from a few exceptions, I would hazzard that sex with as many partners as possible usually happens before marriage. Once married (in itself, an overt gesture of commitment), a conscious decision to become fertile would result from the decision to commit to starting a family which, it would be resonable to suppose, would be accompanied by the decision not to continue shagging anything with a pulse (or at least, not to get caught doing so). So, it's reasonable to suppose that the greatest risk of accidental pregnancy comes from unmarried males.