“Wouldn't a "hormonal imbalance "mean a dysfunction of what those hormones are for ?”
You bring up an interesting thought, and an even better counter point. When I first mentioned hormones, I was partially afraid that you would notice the fallacy I unwittingly revealed. The concept of “programming” which drives us, which I think is a major foundation of your stance. But, in that weakness of my own stance, of which I admitted by first bringing up the word “imbalance”, I think there is a larger issue at hand.
I’ll begin with my second point, and please do tell me if I am incorrectly straw-manning your argument.
Point 2 - Your stance is that our bodies are similar, in a way, to computers. We have three main drives, implanted in our very instincts, that contribute to the advance of our race. My original point, one I believe you have sufficiently dismantled, was that we sometimes have the equivalent to a virus, caused by external factors, that interfere with our original capabilities. Those, we both agree, are exceptions to the norm. Rather than my original point of saying the computer (human body) can be infected, I will now say that it is obsolete. Our primal drives no longer promise longevity.
* The world has changed, and we, as adaptable creatures, have too. We now live in a society of law and order, walls and roads, as opposed to nomadic tribal communities. I believe both of us, based on our prior writings, subscribe to the theory of natural selection and evolution, and so let me begin with that. If we have three drives that contribute to our continued survival, that is: thirst, hunger, and lust, do we not also have fight or flight? Again, I am of the belief that you would agree with those instincts, just as you advocate for the previous three mentioned by both of us. That said, like lust, hunger, and thirst, fight or flight instincts have changed greatly. We can’t fight our boss, or run away from the job and never come back, even though their power presents a threat to us. Instead, we have to ignore one of our most basic instincts in response to threats, and bear the discomfort and suffering for future good. When we were wearing pelts, we would either kill the threat or leave the land. I will admit, that doesn’t have direct bearing on our topic at hand, but it branches to it, and shows the most prevalent example of instincts giving way to modern thinking. Instead of letting our base desires control us to continue our survival, like your response indicates, we need to use our brains and deeper levels of thinking to advance our way past modern obstacles.
* Food quality. I will begin this one by saying that I believe health and survival are intricately linked. If we want to survive as long as we can, we have to be healthy. “The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to obesity among US adults is approximately 280000 based on HRs from all subjects” (Allison et al, 1999). With that in mind, simply eating/satisfying your hunger in the 21st century, is a great way to get in the grave early. I predict a counter point to this will be that we can eat healthy, live long, and satisfy our primal drive, but I will contest that. I’m not trying to argue that we don’t need to eat, drink, or consummate to continue the human race’s survival, I’m merely stating that satisfying those desires across the board, is not to our species benefit. You have said that “I'm pretty much indeed saying each of these three elements do and always function as survival drives.” I am arguing that they only function as survival drives when driven by sound, informed thinking. “The fundamental concern as we look to reform health in America is the known reality that most chronic diseases that afflict Americans are predominantly lifestyle induced; and the belief is that the vast majority of heart attacks and strokes could be prevented if people were willing to adopt healthy lifestyle behaviors” , additionally, “over the past 50 years, the health of Americans has gotten worse, and now 71% of Americans are overweight or obese—not 66%, which was reported 5 years ago” (Fuhrman, 2018). These people are subscribers to your line of thinking. They are satisfying their hunger, conveniently, while sacrificing their health/continued survival.
When you first stated the debate’s theme, I thought Tarzan. He seems to embody what you’re trying to argue for. He didn’t really need anything to survive but food and water, and when he met Jane, his lineage would be conceived and survive by consummating and continuing these practices. They don’t need clothes, or education, to survive, but that’s in the jungle. In civilized countries, Tarzan would die faster than you could say “OOOORRRRRAAAA” as you swing on vines.
Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, Stevens J, VanItallie TB. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA. 1999 Oct 27;282(16):1530-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.16.1530. PMID: 10546692. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10546692/