From an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of an organism is to pass along its genes through reproduction. However, as humans we have a choice if we want to reproduce or not. The good feeling from climax hardly seems to be a strong enough incentive to make people want to have sex, especially when that good feeling can be achieved in many other ways.

So why did we evolve to have a choice whether we want to reproduce or not, when it's defeating our biological purpose? Why didn't we evolve a different "reward system" than a climax to goad us to have sex, and is it likely that in the far future we will acquire a different, stronger reward system?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ All organisms have some level of control over reproduction. Nothing unique to humans. There are many conditions in which reproduction is costly (for e.g. food shortage). Even bacteria won't reproduce if the conditions are not favourable. The word "choice" is a very anthropocentric term. $\endgroup$ – WYSIWYG Jul 19 '19 at 11:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've voted to close your question as off-topic as any answer to either question "Why didn't we evolve (some other way)" or "Is it likely in the future…" can only be speculative. This is not a discussion site, it is a question and answer site about (single) "practical detailed questions in biology". And in any case your premise seems false — if it hadn't worked we wouldn't be here. $\endgroup$ – David Jul 19 '19 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ Ask a typical parent how they feel about their children and I think you'd realize there is more than just one reward system... If it was only orgasm, babies wouldn't survive long enough to care for themselves. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Jul 19 '19 at 14:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David All hypotheses are speculative at first. My premise, that an organism's biological purpose (from an evolutionary standpoint) is to pass on its genes, is not false. $\endgroup$ – P. SN Jul 19 '19 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I had thought your premise was that there was a problem with the way we had evolved because it risked the survival of the species. $\endgroup$ – David Jul 19 '19 at 18:50

Your fundamental mistake is this statement:

the purpose of an organism is to pass along its genes through reproduction

Evolution does not actually involve "purpose" in any way. Rather, it is just the observation that populations with traits that more reliably produce descendants end up with more descendants.

With regards to humans, being really smart and flexible creatures has been extremely advantageous for us as a population (so far at least). One of the side effects of that intelligence is that we have a lot more agency in our choices than many other forms of life---and also a maddeningly huge amount of variation in our world-views and preferences (whether consciously chosen or otherwise).

That includes one's attitude toward sex and reproduction, and so it's entirely unsurprising that there are many people who choose not to have sex, or who choose to have sex but not to reproduce.

At the same time, no matter what your personal opinion on the sufficiency of our drives may be, it seems to be enough to motivate most others to have sex and children. As such, there doesn't seem to be anything selecting for that motivation to change, because the people who are insufficiently motivated to have children will not tend to have descendants, while those who are sufficiently motivated will.

Bottom line: humans are reproducing effectively and those who reproduce are evolutionary selecting for the status quo---the same drives that already motivate them to reproduce.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.