[QatzelOk]

Delayed gratification is about resisting desires in the present in order to receive a 'reward' later on. It is often linked to financial success. "Good things come to them who wait."

The "heaven" concept of the Abrahamic religions tries to vulgarize this concept for the less literate. "Be nice and passive in this life (sublimate all your desires) and you will enjoy an eternity of poolside Margaritas after you die."

But there's a problem. Delayed gratification is mainly "required" in civilizations. Natural man, living in nature, can rely on his instincts to tell him what to do. Nature, pre-civilization man, can live out his natural desires to an infinitely greater degree than Modern Super-Civilized Man.

So while natural, pre-civilized men enjoyed natural polygomy with all the partners they liked, and only dedicated about 20 hours per week for work,..... Modern Civilized Man spends his long, boring days making spread-sheets with Excel and reading about sexual predators on Facebook during "free" moments.

Delayed gratification is the religion of slaves, and it causes major damage to our quality of life.

(Related article: Waiting for the American Dream)

[danholo]

'Delayed gratification' religions describe people who act on every whim and 'natural' desire immediately as slaves.

The actual conversation is which is more analogous to slavery; instant or delayed gratification?

[mikema63]

Probably telling people they aren't allowed to delay or act on their immediate desires is more like slavery than people choosing to delay or act on their immediate desires is.

Or we could just broadly generalize about how the vaguest possible concepts are slavery and the sheeple just wont listen.

[Hong Wu]

Depending on how we define natural man, this isn't always true. It's sort of true for a hunter-gatherer, if you don't count the long treks and likelihood of random starvation as a delay. For agrarian people, there's a lot of delays before the gratification and they are arguably "natural".

I think it's also simplistic to say that pre-civilized men enjoyed natural polygamy. There's archaeological evidence of very early marriage rituals and there's the idea that jealousy is a naturally evolved mechanism, so the pre-historical polygamy meme is probably not correct. Even animals regularly display "jealousy" towards each other.

20 hours of work per week for pre-historic man? I guess that probably happened sometimes, if they weren't getting killed by wolves or something. What's interesting though is medieval peasants actually had more time off than the average person today because there was an entire season when there wasn't a lot of work that could be done.

'Delayed gratification' religions describe people who act on every whim and 'natural' desire immediately as slaves.

The actual conversation is which is more analogous to slavery; instant or delayed gratification?

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

The trap here is that one could say that delayed gratification is always good, which obviously isn't true, but it's more likely to be good than seeking instant gratification and that's why the bias formed up as it did.

[danholo]

Of course one could say whatever. Then again, I don't think anyone is proposing an extreme - except the OP.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Instant gratification = decadence.

the OP assumes an anthropology akin to that of Rousseau in the Social Contract and Freud in his Civilization and Its Discontents. That man in his natural state either lived in, or even pursued, instant gratification is highly speculative. Likewise, such fails to properly differentiate higher and lesser goods in the "natural realm" when critiquing the delay of gratification in religious dogma, which is intellectually unfair.

Instant gratification may keep a man on the couch because it maintains a general state of pleasure and ease, and to eat cheese puffs and icrecream and masturbate at will; however, the delaying of this carnal gratification in order to climb mount Everest (via strenous walking, keeping your willy in, rationing food etc) yields the much greater pleasure and gratification of the feat.

This would likely have been the same in this mythical "state of nature," for man would have to delay immediate pleasures to guarantee either greater pleasures or even the preservation of more carnal pleasures for a longer period of time. Man would have to delay the immediate to secure more of the same or to achieve greater. Indeed, the sensations of pleasure seemed partially designed to this end. Men, generally, like to have their bellies full, balls empty, and have plenty of rest; however, the joys of these things are more greatly satisfied via the hunt, the conquest, and the domination of peoples, resources, and regions. A man sleeps best when he has secured an area via the power of his strength and will, he eats that which is enjoyable after securing it as a resource, and he enjoys a woman after making her his own. All of which, require the delaying of such gratification which makes the ultimate enjoyment of the spoils more enjoyable.

Like was said brilliantly in Jurassic Park when they tried to feed a goat to the T-Rex: "He doesn't want to be fed, he wants to hunt."

[QatzelOk]

Instant gratification = decadence. [/i]

More slave philosophy.

Before words and speech were invented, people couldn't lie the way Modern Man does. Slaves lie about their condition because otherwise, they risk punishment from their masters and their masters' disciplinary institutions - like prisons, hospitals, and social snobbery-based associations.

Originally, mankind lived according to his instincts. Those who failed died yound, and instincts got better and better... until words and other technologies turned the human race into techno-narcissists on their way to environmental suicide.

Explain why it is that every civilization destroys its environment and then dies. Delayed gratification, like every other social strategy to control nature, ends up killing it.

I don't think anyone is proposing an extreme - except the OP.

Here, you sound like Hillary Clinton explaining how 'Libya isn't perfect but they just voted for moderates in an election...'

Middle of the Road might seem like a safe position, but it's more like delaying having an opinion. This can be a terrible strategy with terrible consequences.

It also creates a dysfuntional break between your natural feelings and your course of action.

[MistyTiger]

Instant gratification is worse. It makes us slaves of that burning need to be gratified immediately as if we are drooling animals that pant at the sight of our heart's desire and we have to grab it at first sight.

I would rather have delayed gratification then live under the illusion that everything is a button click away. Life doesn't work like that generally. We have to work for good health, we have to practice until we can perform a skill better, even downloading that music file for our iPod isn't instant.

[QatzelOk]

Instant gratification is worse. It makes us slaves of that burning need to be gratified immediately as if we are drooling animals that pant at the sight of our heart's desire and we have to grab it at first sight.

I would rather have delayed gratification then live under the illusion that everything is a button click away. Life doesn't work like that generally. We have to work for good health, we have to practice until we can perform a skill better, even downloading that music file for our iPod isn't instant.

Button clicks are not a good example of a healthy spontanaity. They are more a symptom of a population that has lost touch with their instincts because they have lost the freedom to act on them.

Since we can't act on our instinctive impulses (anymore than caged zoo animals can), we find some kind of 'pleasure' in clicking on pages and staring at images.

Domestic animals often chew or scratch the fur off their tail or neck in lieu of having a natural ability to act on their natural instincts. We click and watch advertising-spiked 'entertainment' instead.

[Victoribus Spolia]

slave philosophy.

If you are using Nietzsche's definition, then you are not applying it correctly. Slave morality is not delayed gratification, but being resolved to a state of servitude or misery. Nietzsche argued against slave morality, but argued for the virtues of delayed gratification via the pursuit and experience of hardship as a means of higher gratification. This is his doctrine of the Will-to-Power.

Likewise, pursuing one's instincts does not equal instant gratification. Instant gratification could be solved by only masturbating in one place, but this would be contrary to the instincts of pursuing a mate for sexual reproduction which would require delayed gratification to accomplish, even in nature.

Defining instant gratification as pursuing instincts is equivocation.

Button clicks are not a good example of a healthy spontanaity.

You never qualified instant v. delayed gratification, so this is a poor response. If one ought to pursue instant gratification, and button clicks provide that, then why not? Likewise, even in a state of nature, instant gratification does not guarantee freedom, one can become addicted to naturally occurring substances in a state of nature, so being in a caged civilization environment is not necessary for such "unhealthy" outcomes to be possible.

[B0ycey]

...and masturbate at will

Is that murder at will VS? Are you advocating this? How is masturbation different to contraception in terms of eliminating potential life? If Reese palmed one off instead shaking up with fertile Sarah, did he kill John Connor? If so, should we outlaw masturation?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Is that murder at will VS? Are you advocating this? How is masturbation different to contraception in terms of eliminating potential life? If Reese palmed one off instead shaking up with fertile Sarah, did he kill John Connor? If so, should we outlaw masturation?

I am obviously opposing such here.

But yes, if Reese palmed one off instead of fucking Sarah, he could have very well prevented John Connor from ever being, which is kinda the point.

I don't think we could practically enforce such a law on masturbation, logistically, but I would make contraception illegal to sell or possess. If marriage was permitted and even encouraged at a much earlier age than we do now, masturbation could theoretically be almost eliminated, especially with supplemental education on when and when it would not, be the same as murder in the context of marriage.

[B0ycey]

Do you accept the multiverse theory VS? Perhaps John Connor could have both lived and died when the Terminator returned and only the multiverse you are in determines which outcome occured when the Terminator returned. Contraception, like most things you do, eliminates and narrows possibilities. But, and this is the important thing, it doesn't kill anything as something has yet to be created to be destroyed. Also an infinite amount of universes allows you to accept that every eventuality exists somewhere. And if you accept that, you can also accept independent free choice and that your choices allows another universe to exist with another outcome all together.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Do you accept the multiverse theory

No. Besides, I don't subscribe to anything that I can't prove.

[addem]

No. Besides, I don't subscribe to anything that I can't prove.

Can you prove that atoms exist?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Can you prove that atoms exist?

We are talking about theoretical frameworks, not discrete entities. I don't subscribe to atoms, I subscribe to theories....so that is different.

But....coincidentally enough, I am an immaterialist, so I deny the existence of matter because it cannot be proven to exist; though equating atoms and matter is subject to debate. If atoms are perceptible, I would agree with their existence, if they are neither perceptible or necessarily perceiving, I would deny their existence..

[addem]

We are talking about theoretical frameworks, not discrete entities. I don't subscribe to atoms, I subscribe to theories....so that is different.

But....coincidentally enough, I am an immaterialist, so I deny the existence of matter because it cannot be proven to exist; though equating atoms and matter is subject to debate. If atoms are perceptible, I would agree with their existence, if they are neither perceptible or necessarily perceiving, I would deny their existence..

One would think an immaterialist (I assume that's the same thing as an idealist) would still believe in atoms, just re-construed in an idealist framework. Unless, of course, you fundamentally reject all of science that you have not personally seen demonstrations of. And even in that case, you couldn't prove that the universe isn't one second old, created by an evil demon in such a way as to trick you into believing that it's older. So with that kind of sweeping skepticism, you're left not believing that I exist, that Russia is a country, that Trump is president, and so on.

[ThirdTerm]

I think delayed gratification developed among modern humans as an acquired habit with the onset of farming. Foragers had no choice but to consume what they had discovered such as fruits without waiting any longer as they had no knowledge of food preservation. Farmers could store food to survive during harsh conditions and powerful ones among them could also accumulate wealth in this manner, which is the origin of social stratification in which people are grouped into hierarchical social classes. A civilization is built upon a hierarchical society, to which slavery is a natural condition.

[B0ycey]

But....coincidentally enough, I am an immaterialist, so I deny the existence of matter because it cannot be proven to exist;

You have been taking in too much influence from your 'flat-earther' wife.

I assume you don't accept E=mc2 then? Matter exists VS. Look all around you. Only the perception of matter is questionable.

[addem]

I think delayed gratification developed among modern humans as a habit with the onset of farming. Foragers had no choice but to consume what they had discovered without waiting any further. Farmers could store food to survive during harsh conditions and they could also accumulate wealth in this manner, which is the origin of social stratification in which people are grouped into hierarchical social classes. A civilization cannot exist without a hierarchical society.

This seems like a speculative history. Foragers were known to make and trade tools, and before the onset of full agriculture, would store excess collected nuts and grains in pots and underground, to return for them during the winter or next year. Although it's hard to come by direct evidence of smoked or otherwise preserved meats, it seems entirely possible (I think, likely) that such organic matter is just lost to the historical record even though it existed. They very likely also did a lot of things that were not immediately gratifying like tattoos, scarification, ceremonially inflicting pain on themselves in other ways. They overcame fear during war. I doubt characterizing them as instant gratifiers is accurate.

In fact, one thing I think is really interesting about our evolutionary ancestry is that all known primates are absolutely, uncontrollably terrified of fire. They like cooked food more than uncooked food, but they cannot tolerate their fear of fire enough to cook it. Homo erectus seems to have been the first primate in our ancestry to very likely have controlled or even started fire, and it had a much bigger brain made of a lot more proteins, likely gathered from cooked meat. I think our control of our emotions is likely one of the most distinctive features of human beings, and a key to our history.