Why is sex so good?

[rwanger]

At the risk of hijacking the other thread, I thought I'd start an offshoot.

Diablo explained that we like sex because:
[ QUOTE ]

Sex makes sense, that's how we reproduce, so it makes sense that the act itself is something we would like to do, even at times when it's not directly leading to reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't necessarily understand this myself. Why bother to make sex so good? If it was just "okay" instead of amazing, wouldn't people still do on those occasions when they wanted to reproduce? Do we need to be "nudged" into reproducing? With all of the methods of birth control available, people are still doing it, so I'd argue that we don't need to be nudged.

Do you think that if we started to get close to overpopulating the earth, sex would become less enjoyable for the evolutionary purpose of curbing population growth?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of hijacking the other thread, I thought I'd start an offshoot.

Diablo explained that we like sex because:
[ QUOTE ]

Sex makes sense, that's how we reproduce, so it makes sense that the act itself is something we would like to do, even at times when it's not directly leading to reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't necessarily understand this myself. Why bother to make sex so good? If it was just "okay" instead of amazing, wouldn't people still do on those occasions when they wanted to reproduce? Do we need to be "nudged" into reproducing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. How many people's first kid is an accident?

[NT!]

If you look at things from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that any animal would find the reproductive acts satisfying or feel a hormonal / instinctive urge to do it. One cannot expect animals to reproduce out of a sense of duty, since many of them have brains smaller than a dime, thus humans would probably not have evolved any differently. The fact that we are still hardwired to enjoy sex despite that fact that the species has been dominant for millenia is indicative of how unlikely it is we will 'evolve' to disregard reproduction before our overpopulation problem takes care of itself by exceeding earth's carrying capacity. There really aren't any examples that I know of where animals voluntarily stopped or slowed reproduction because they were overpopulated, although someone more interested in science may be able to point one out.

NT

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't necessarily understand this myself. Why bother to make sex so good? If it was just "okay" instead of amazing, wouldn't people still do on those occasions when they wanted to reproduce? Do we need to be "nudged" into reproducing? With all of the methods of birth control available, people are still doing it, so I'd argue that we don't need to be nudged.

[/ QUOTE ]


Consider 2 people:

A: finds sex "OK"
B: finds sex amazing

B will, on average, be looking for sex more than A. He will also have more sex than A. B will, therefore, put more of his genes into the next generation.

Because of this, A's feelings on sex will slowly be weeded out.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that if we started to get close to overpopulating the earth, sex would become less enjoyable for the evolutionary purpose of curbing population growth?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This will never happen. Evolution never acts for the good of the species.

[Borodog]

The urge to reproduce predates our species' ability to decide to do so.

[Red Lion]

Our bodies want us to reproduce as much as possible. Hence, we enjoy sex.

[d-baggery]

The world will be come overpopulated a million times faster than it would take for a species in evolve into not liking sex, if that were even possible. Which I doubt.

[Yobz]

Evolution works on the level of the gene, not at the level of a species

[diebitter]

Evolution. The larger brain was favoured for our species, but this meant our young needed to born even more immature than other species. The human newborn is extremely vulnerable (and stays so for years) compared to many other species because of this, and the family unit is needed to support them (at least back in caveman days). To keep the family unit together, sex plays a vital role, and human females are effectively 'in heat' permanently, unlike many other species.

In sum, sex promotes bonding, with allows these newborns to survive. Sex was good for our ancestors and coincided with evolutionary fitness, so sex is good now.

I've massively simplified this, and causality of what came first (big brain, family unit etc etc) is still unclear, but I hope you all get the general drift.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that if we started to get close to overpopulating the earth, sex would become less enjoyable for the evolutionary purpose of curbing population growth?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds awfully like you have a misconception of how evolution works. Evolution is not going to foresee if we "started to get close to overpopulating the earth."

However, there are many examples of this in nature where individuals will limit the number of children they have (at least at once). Resources aren't unlimited, and in order to maximize the chance of genes getting passed on, parents will have only so many children so that they are likely to survive.

Also, at this point in the human case, there are bigger factors than natural selection that will have much more of an effect. So the answer to your question is pretty much a "no."