Nature selects those who leave more progeny (reproductively fit) according to natural selection. But nowadays we are going in for family planning. So are we in a way going against Nature?
closed as unclear what you're asking by anongoodnurse, another 'Homo sapien', AliceD♦, canadianer, Bryan Krause♦ Apr 2 '17 at 19:07
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Issue in the post
The question is based on a false dichotomy between what is natural from what is not. This non-existence of the concepts of natural vs artificial is a matter of analytical philosophy, therefore your question is non-sensical for philosophical reasons.
Some insights despite above issue
In several species that have advanced cognitive abilities, there are traditions and culture. This culture may affect the number of offspring that individuals will have. This effect exists in humans for sure. There is nothing unnatural to it (but again it depends what you want to call natural and artificial)!
In a comment you say
I mean to say that nature selects those who leave more progeny according to Darwin.But as we are now going in for family planning, we are going against what Darwin said.
There are at least 2 issues here
Misrepresentation of evolutionary biology as being Darwin's saying
Evolutionary biology is so much more that Darwin's work. Of course Darwin was a very important scientist that contributed a lot to evolutionary biology but summarizing any saying from this field of science to Darwin's saying is very downgrading for evolutionary biology.
It feels like nature is an active character
nature selects those who leave more progeny, it feels like "nature" would be some kind of character that actively chooses those that leave more progeny. This is wrong. Genomes that leave on average more copies of themselves will tend to become predominant in the population. Selection is just the consequence of fitness differential and not a choice that is made by looking at fitness differences. If you are unused to the term "fitness" as used in evolutionary biology, please have a look at the wikipedia link. This term is completely different from the concept of body-building in sport.
You might want to have a look at Understanding Evolution by UC Berkeley, a free online very introductory course to evolutionary biology.