[batista]

>I understand and agree with your point, as it is scientifically based. I remember seeing a great TED talk on the effect this is having.

Going off a tangent here, but I would agree with that even if it was not "scientifically based".

For a lot of stuff, especially cultural stuff related to societal norms, the philosophy of it (the "how we want to live" part) is more useful than science.

That is, even without any papers or clinical studies, one can deduce things like the above. It's not like we need scientists to tell us even the more basic things of our everyday existence. Some cannot even be measured or quantified objectively, because they relate to what we want to be the norm, and not what is "objectively right" or "natural". Not to mention that what is a "scientific result" in this kind of issues (i.e outside of physics, math, etc) is prone to lots of biases and/or interests.

It's better to ask "what kind of world we would like to live in" in those cases, and judge by that.