jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) (05/08/91)
An acquaintance of mine, an Italian mathematician, once argued that birth control was inappropriate because the essential function of sexual intercourse is reproduction, and to have sex without the possibility of reproduction violates the essential function of sex, making the act meaningless, or at least less than wholesome. I have tried to make sense of this from a biological perspective, and I find that things are not at all simple. By definition, the biological function of any adaptation is to enhance reproduction, but we do not generally think that the use of an adapatation in a way that might frustrate reproduction is a violation of the essential nature of the function. Just for example, time spent thinking about philosophy, mathematics or music does not directly contribute to reproduction, but we do not see this (my friend certainly would not) as therefore unwholesome. The question is, why should sex have this special role, over and above that of other adaptations? There are reasons to believe that it does not, especially in humans. For example, humans are adapted so that ovulation is concealed, thus much sexual activity serves no direct reproductive function (though, the essential function may be perserved, since there is at least the deception in the participants that reproduction is possible). Furthermore, sexual intercourse is the basis for a variety of other social functions that it is difficult to classify as biologically perverse without knowing already the biological function of sex, which is the issue that is in question. What I am asking is whether there is any biological evidence that sex has a special function in contributing to reproduction over and above the way in which all adaptations contribute to reproduction, and if this justifies the claim that reproduction is uniquely essential to the biological function of sex in human beings. This issue is significant, since some rather strong moral claims have been made on the basis of supposed factual claims about the function of sex that seem to me to get little support from our current knowledge of human biology. I probably need not stress the moral questionability of deriving moral claims from dubious factual claims, on a variety of well-trodden grounds. Any comments, either directly or posted to the net, would be welcome. I am currently writing on the sociobiology of morality. -- John Collier Email: Collier@HPS.unimelb.edu.au HPS -- University of Melbourne jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052 Fax: 61+3 344 7959
lecl@quads.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) (05/09/91)
In article <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) writes: >An acquaintance of mine, an Italian mathematician, once argued that >birth control was inappropriate because the essential function of >sexual intercourse is reproduction, and to have sex without the >possibility of reproduction violates the essential function of sex, >making the act meaningless, or at least less than wholesome. > >I have tried to make sense of this from a biological perspective, and I >find that things are not at all simple. By definition, the biological >function of any adaptation is to enhance reproduction, but we do not >generally think that the use of an adapatation in a way that might >frustrate reproduction is a violation of the essential nature of the >function. Just for example, time spent thinking about philosophy, >mathematics or music does not directly contribute to reproduction, but >we do not see this (my friend certainly would not) as therefore >unwholesome. The question is, why should sex have this special role, >over and above that of other adaptations? > You have the essential objections already, I think. One might first inquire why we are using the term "violation" in conjunction with an adaptation. This smacks directly of the moral principle which your friend seems to be trying to derive, and is hence the source of some circularity in the argument. For example, there is a humorous piece of writing I saw once which mimics Thomas Aquinas' argument against male masturbation (which was supposedly a "violation" or "waste" of the proper function of seminal fluid), but substitutes saliva for sperm. The argument goes on to say how spitting casually on the ground is a "violation" and a grave moral deviation, since the "function" of saliva is to lubricate your mouth and aid in digestion, and that function is "perverted" when it is spat upon the ground. The act of "having sex" is also not the only thing that "enhances reproduction." One coudl conceivably argue that the entire human body and all of its functions essential to life are therefore enhancing of reproduction. On these grounds, smoking a cigarette would be an unwholesome or "maladaptive" behavior, since smoking could decrease your lifespan or your potential to have viable children, especially if a woman was smoking during pregnancy. >For example, humans are adapted so that ovulation is concealed, thus much >sexual activity serves no direct reproductive function (though, the >essential function may be perserved, since there is at least the >deception in the participants that reproduction is possible). Furthermore, sexual intercourse is the basis for a variety of other >social functions that it is difficult to classify as biologically >perverse without knowing already the biological function of sex, which >is the issue that is in question. > Two things here: 1) What is the "biological function" of sex? This has been argued a lot from various evolutionary perspectives. The immediate function of sex is obviously that of reproduction. There are forms of reproduction, however, which do not involve sex (int he sense of meiosis or gametic mixing). Arguments for the prevalence of sexual reproduction (= sex with meiosis) involve claims for the long-term benefit of increased and changeable variation in the offspring of such organisms which is provided by such mixing. 2) What is "biologically perverse" about contraception? Arguing strictly as a "natural-selection strategist", one might claim tha the only thing that coudl be "wrong" with contraception is that it decreases your reproductive potential-- reproduction potential being the only currency or standard of "goodness" that we will accept. Contraception as used by humans does not demonstrably result in decreased reproductive output. Although many people use contraception to influence that timing and spacing of pregnancies, they do not necessarily have fewer children than they could. It might be possible that spacing out your children with intermittent contraception gives healthier, better babies and a healthier mother than one who is popping kids out all the time. This would be a benefit in reproductive capability. True, socities which practice contraception are often those with decreased birth rates, but this has done nothing yet to limit the reproductive capacity of the human species as a whole. We are still exploding all over the planet, despite individual reproductive restraint by some. In this condition we might imagine that those who use contraception to limit their own reproductive potential to, say, only one child per couple, are enhancign the survivial value of that child by not providing more little brothers and sisters to fill up the planet faster. In the latter case, none of the children might survive the crowded, polluted conditions. In the former, one might survive. One is better than none by any estimation of reproductive fitness. Given these conditions, then, contraception is biologically "smart" and "good", rather than "perverse." >What I am asking is whether there is any biological evidence that sex >has a special function in contributing to reproduction over and above >the way in which all adaptations contribute to reproduction, and if this >justifies the claim that reproduction is uniquely essential to the >biological function of sex in human beings. > I have argued against the first point (contribution to reproduction) above. To put it another way: Sex is a necessary condition for reproduction, but so is a healthy, living body and all its other adaptations. You will not have sex, nor reproduce if you are slow and get eaten by a leopard. To the second claim: Reproduction is a unique outcome of sex, but this says nothing about the quality or morality of alternate outcomes, i.e. pleasure and fun! All those little nerve endings do not have a direct influence on the success of fertilization or reproduction, but they have their own "function." i.e. they react to input like any other Why anyone should deny these little nerves their function anytime conception is being prevented should explain to me why these nerves are wired the way they are. If it was "bad", i.e. a selective disadvantage to have non-procreative sex, then why haven't these wires become *disconnected* in the course of evolution? --My, how *stimulating* this discussion is.... -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Elizabeth E. LeClair [lecl@midway.uchicago.edu] <<<<<<<<<<< My opinions do not reflect those of the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago would DIE to have opinions as enlightened as mine!
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (05/09/91)
In article <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) writes: >An acquaintance of mine, an Italian mathematician, once argued that >birth control was inappropriate because the essential function of >sexual intercourse is reproduction, and to have sex without the >possibility of reproduction violates the essential function of sex, >making the act meaningless, or at least less than wholesome. That same argument would keep us from speaking as our voices were never originally "meant" to be used in such a way. Writing, by the same argument, is a perversion of our hands, as they were meant for grabbing objects, not manipulating writing implements. Then, even grabbing objects is an afront, as our hands were only meant for grabbing tree branches. There is such a thing as reuse. Things that get used one way will eventually get adapted for other uses. That's a general law in biology. And guess what? We're evolving right before our very eyes into a species which uses sex for mainly (and perhaps someday, ONLY) recreational purposes. >What I am asking is whether there is any biological evidence that sex >has a special function in contributing to reproduction over and above >the way in which all adaptations contribute to reproduction, and if this >justifies the claim that reproduction is uniquely essential to the >biological function of sex in human beings. So ... the main issue is this: even if we found such "evidence", why would it even be relevant in light of the fact that reuse of existing facilities is a general rule in nature? That is, if it WAS essential to tbe biological function of sex in humans indeed, that I could just say here and now PRESTO! it ain't any more, we've just crossed the threshold of an evolutionary change! We're not the exact same human species as walked this Earth 2 days ago ipso facto because of this (PRESTO) evolutionary change.
wgpsy471@nmt.edu (Bill Grother) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.003218.3510@midway.uchicago.edu> lecl@quads.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) writes: >In article <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) writes: >>For example, humans are adapted so that ovulation is concealed, thus much >>sexual activity serves no direct reproductive function (though, the >>essential function may be perserved, since there is at least the >>deception in the participants that reproduction is possible). >Furthermore, sexual intercourse is the basis for a variety of other >>social functions that it is difficult to classify as biologically >>perverse without knowing already the biological function of sex, which >>is the issue that is in question. >> > Two things here: > > 1) What is the "biological function" of sex? This has been argued a > lot from various evolutionary perspectives. The immediate function > of sex is obviously that of reproduction. There are forms of reproduction, > however, which do not involve sex (int he sense of meiosis or gametic > mixing). Arguments for the prevalence of sexual reproduction (= sex > with meiosis) involve claims for the long-term benefit of increased > and changeable variation in the offspring of such organisms which is > provided by such mixing. Sex, by its present nature, allows the potential for a greatly varied genetic structure; that is to say, sex started out simply as a method for bringing about reproduction, but now comes to encompass (at least in humans) a wide variety of behaviors associated with sex and sexuality, thereby allowing genetic mixing over an incredible range. > 2) What is "biologically perverse" about contraception? > > Arguing strictly as a "natural-selection strategist", one might claim > that the only thing that could be "wrong" with contraception is that > it decreases your reproductive potential-- reproduction potential > being the only currency or standard of "goodness" that we will accept. > Contraception as used by humans does not demonstrably result in decreased > reproductive output. Although many people use contraception to > influence that timing and spacing of pregnancies, they do not > necessarily have fewer children than they could. It might be possible > that spacing out your children with intermittent contraception gives > healthier, better babies and a healthier mother than one who is > popping kids out all the time. This would be a benefit in reproductive > capability. Latency is an important issue here...because of social and economic structures that man has erected (no pun intended), it is not as acceptable in our society nowadays to have a great number of children; in the past, we were strictly farmers and artisans, and children were important for the potential addition of hands to help tend the work. With the industrial boom of the past century and the subsequent rise of the city, large families are no longer as necessary or favorable as they once were...but be that as it may, the latency of past reproductive strategy is still with us, and we continue to have children at a rate our new societal structure cannot support... > True, socities which practice contraception are often those with decreased > birth rates, but this has done nothing yet to limit the reproductive > capacity of the human species as a whole. We are still exploding all > over the planet, despite individual reproductive restraint by some. In > this condition we might imagine that those who use contraception to > limit their own reproductive potential to, say, only one child per couple, > are enhancign the survivial value of that child by not providing more > little brothers and sisters to fill up the planet faster. In the latter > case, none of the children might survive the crowded, polluted conditions. > In the former, one might survive. One is better than none by any > estimation of reproductive fitness. Given these conditions, then, > contraception is biologically "smart" and "good", rather than "perverse." And let's face facts: we humans are the only species on the planet which can alter its genetic destiny...through our technology, birth defects and other malformities which in a natural selection setting would not be propogated, now can survive in the atmosphere of artificial selection our technology has created...each and every unborn child now has a chance to survive and explore its potential...this allows a continuance of population expansion, as the natural barriers to overpopulation are taken down...the only thing that now stands in the way of an overcrowded and dying Earth is nature...what happened to the dinosaurs could happen to us given the right conditions, and more importantly, the disaster does not have to be natural, but can be man-made. Before anybody gets on my case, let me say that I'm not advocating the killing off of babies with genetic defects or the eradication of "bad genetic material." What I am trying to suggest is that by switching from natural to artificial selection we are changing the mode and strength of propogation of our species in such a way as to seriously strain the life support capabilities of our world, which not only affects us but all other species on the planet...and while we are responsible for the overpopulation that is going on, we also have the tools to stop it...contaception is just one form of population control that we will have to turn to to slow this runaway train called propogation...and we will also have to think about sex in a different light; we will have to stop looking at it as only the reproductive potential of our species, but as the catalyst for changes which affect the whole planet...we will not be able to abandon sex, but we must learn to control it.
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (05/10/91)
"The biological function of any adaption is reproduction" is often incorrectly interpreted to mean "have children." The more accepted interpretation is "to reproduce your genes." This invalidates the common religious interpretation as one can then argue that it may be more advantageous for a person not to reproduce themselves, but instead practice restraint and work towards increasing the reporductive potential of your relatives (those with whom you share genes). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand
jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) (05/11/91)
Thanks to people who replied on this topic. A number of people pointed out that human oestrus is concealed, and that this adaptation enhances bonding, suggesting that a function of sex is bonding. It was also pointed out that sex evolved as an adaptation to facilitate gene recombination. Reproduction exists without sex, so the peculiar function of sex (so to speak) is gene recombination, not reproduction. Some people suggested that the function of sex is pleasure, since this is the immediate goal, but this fails to make the distinction between proximate and ultimate goals. I will not comment on the biological plausibility of the claim that the function of sex is "to keep women in their place". Nobody responded on the issue of why sex is thought to be essentially connected to reproduction (more than any other adaptation). One thought that occurred to me was that sex is (de facto) required for reproduction, whereas other adaptations are not. This does not seem to be sufficient to establish a necessary connection. Gasoline is necesary to run a car, but the necessity is not essential. Nonetheless, it seems that there should be something more to the view that sex and reproduction have some essential relation than long standing opinion. One correspondent suggested that the connection between sex and reproduction was a consequence of religious views, but this leaves open the question of why the religious views supporting the idea have become so widespread. Indeed, if the connection is illusory, it is a widely shared myth of considerable power. This would itself require explanation. -- John Collier Email: Collier@HPS.unimelb.edu.au HPS -- University of Melbourne jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052 Fax: 61+3 344 7959
bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) (05/12/91)
The aforsaid italian mathematician is making a fundamental philosophical
error. It is the error of natural teleology. It is the idea that
'nature' has a 'plan' and that we are bad little boys and girls if we
don't follow the plan. Nature is not a perceptive entity with wi, and the
characteristics that we observ in nature are an emergent property of
random operations. Evolutionary biologists often use teleological
constructs in talking about evolution and nature but they are the first to
tell you that they are just a linguistic convenience. I'll beth the
mathematician in catholic. (most italians are) The phony 'natural law'
construct appears a lot in catholic casuistry.
This is from
bmb@bluemoon.uucp
bmb%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yetrdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May9.003218.3510@midway.uchicago.edu> lecl@quads.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) writes: >In article <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) writes: [THe original questions and answers deleted, see the referenced articles] > > To the second claim: Reproduction is a unique outcome of sex, but > this says nothing about the quality or morality of alternate outcomes, > i.e. pleasure and fun! All those little nerve endings do not have a > direct influence on the success of fertilization or reproduction, but > they have their own "function." i.e. they react to input like any other > Why anyone should deny these little nerves their function anytime > conception is being prevented should explain to me why these nerves > are wired the way they are. If it was "bad", i.e. a selective > disadvantage to have non-procreative sex, then why haven't these > wires become *disconnected* in the course of evolution? > Part of the explanation may have been hinted at above. Since the fertile time of a woman's cycle is largely hidden (basal temperature rise and mucous secretion changes notwithstanding), it would seem to me that the fun aspects provided by those nerves would lead to increased frequency of sex and thus an increased chance for pregnacy to occur not to mention strengthening the pair bond. This may be almost as important for successful reproduction given the long and ardous task of raising the child(ren) to reproductive age. -- Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil | UUCP: ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30 AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.2 | BITNET: dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc WIN/TCP for 3B2 | MCI-Mail: 377-2719 or 0003772719@mcimail.com