I have always considered optimal sexual experience as the central value in my life, and I have always been aware that morals are arbitrary.

To consider morals arbitrary is a nihilistic view. Thus, logically, I have, for a long time, felt an affinity to nihilism.

On the other hand, my own priorities in life have always been clear to me: optimal sexual experience. After some time, I have added the concern about a gentle death.

To have such priorities, and to consider them rooted deeply in human biology, is a non-nihilistic approach to life. If a nihilist argues that nothing in life really matters, then it should also not matter to this person whether he has a satisfying sex life or not.

Thus, those who consider themselves philosophical nihilists (but live along in accordance to their biological urges) are usually just opposed to current moral systems based on religions and other lunatic theories.

But if they have a well-developed acceptance for their biological drives, then they are not genuine nihilists. They (and I could also say: we) do have a value system. It’s just that so far, it has not been well articulated.

But how about this definition: optimal sexual experience, and after that, a gentle death?

For a true nihilist, this value system would be no better than that of a Catholic hermit. If these alternatives are not equal to you, then you are not a nihilist.

Now, if we accept optimal sexual experience, and after that, a gentle death, as what really counts in life, we ought to consider to what extent we want to achieve this together with others or in opposition to others.

Yes, our evolution has resulted in men competing with each other for the most, and the best, females. Evolution has also resulted in women competing with each other, maybe not so much for the most men, but definitely for the best men.

It’s illusionism to believe that these mechanisms will be overcome any time in the future. And while I have high respect for Marx and Engels, their ideas on this specific topic were immature and amateurish. I do not blame them: I have also disseminated immature and amateurish thoughts. The fact is: it takes a lot of time to arrive at the truth.

So, nature has determined us to compete with each other.

But nature has also equipped us with the capability to act in solidarity for the benefit of each of us.

So, let’s examine common ground.

I assume that a lot of people could be enlisted as supporting a society that allows each of us an optimum of personal freedom with as much safety as possible.

For such a society will be most conducive for many to pursue optimal sexual experience, and after that, to have a gentle death.

Contrast this model with the models of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists who wish to impose on us a society full of sexual restrictions. Sure, even in such societies, some men will out-compete other men, and indeed achieve optimal sexual experience. But for most, men and women, it will be sexual misery.

I prefer a society in which personal freedom and safety are the accepted values, not sexual misery and belief in a better life after death.

Many of those who consider themselves nihilists because they cannot subscribe to any current mega value system (religions, democratic idealism, communism) also think that all human societies and states are one as shitty as the other, and they again assume that because of this position, they are nihilists.

But they are wrong for the second time. Because the shape and structure of our societies is in our hands, provided we get our act together.

If religious lunatics were able to build societies in odd forms as they existed in ancient Egypt, witch-hunting Europe, or recent Afghanistan, why should it not be possible to set up societies that are in better harmony with both, our biological design and reason.

It’s really just a matter of a number of practical steps in the right direction. But it would require some solidarity of those who wrongly see themselves as nihilists.