Passing on our genes- thought experiment.

5318008!

This is based on a real case (although the man didn't die, he just got sent to jail).

You're a man, working at a fertility clinic. You specialise in the ivf treatment of women with sperm from an anonymous donor (mostly lesbian couples).

Here's the thing though, you realise that instead of using anonymous sperm, you could just use your own sperm and sire many many children.

Given the anonymous nature of the donations it would be years before you are caught, however once you are caught you will be executed for this shocking crime.

So do you chose death and have 200 children, or do you enjoy your life and chose the ethical route of using anonymous sperm?

would even feel slightly reluctant before impregnating all those women with your kids?

Evolutionary psychology would demand that we'd all immediately jump at the opportunity without giving it a second thought.

Joe1919

5318008! wrote: »

Evolutionary psychology would demand that we'd all immediately jump at the opportunity without giving it a second thought.

But most people I think would not and this seems to suggest that either

1. Evolutionary psychology is wrong. or

2. This interpretation of evolutionary psychology is wrong.

I suspect the latter.

nyarlothothep

The survival instinct wins over. Theoretically one could have many more children over a lifetime if specific circumstances were favourable.

silverharp

It seems to miss out on the cultural benefits. Change the situation to "the King" is allowed to have 50 wives, I think there would be a lot of interst in the job.

JayK

Joe1919 wrote: »

But most people I think would not and this seems to suggest that either

1. Evolutionary psychology is wrong. or

2. This interpretation of evolutionary psychology is wrong.

I suspect the latter.

Misinterpretation it is.

Evolution shapes your behaviour to maximise reproductive output. That's not to say evolution gives you the conscious goal of maximising your reproductive output. Sex is the goal, reproduction is the result.

marabhfuil

My dear confused man,

you completely left out of the equation the other half of the genetic makeup that results in the sireing of a child.

evolutionary scientifically speaking you do not want to breed with an inferior thus this may go someway towards explaining the ensuing moral dilema. you know not whether the mother of you child will be minging or not! Maybe...

JayK

Women don't want to breed with an inferior specimen. Or rather, they want to breed with the most superior specimen possible. This is because females have to make a huge contribution to their offspring - in humans 9 months of difficult pregnancy. After that they can dispose of the child but that means the contribution of the pregnancy wasted, so in truth they're also stuch with raising the child.

What contribution does a man make? One load of sperm, that he'd probably just have wasted anyway. Hence, biologically, men want to mate with as many women as possible. There's some interesting experiments carried out regarding this. Like after sex, a man's sex drive for the women he's slept with wanes. But if the possibility of sex with another woman appears, his sex drive returns. I'm fairly sure that's from "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker so unfortunately I can't reference it.

__

This is all, of course, an argument from biology. Not a comment on society, or how society should be. Maybe condoms are the foundation of modern civilisation

Cianos

Passing on our genes is not a conscious need we have. We don't have sex because we consciously want to conceive a child there and then, we have sex because we find it pleasurable, as it is the most evolutionary efficient way to get two people in to bed

If we were as mindful of wanting to conceive a child as we were of, say, being hungry (or horny), then maybe most men would be tempted in to tampering with the sperm samples.

White Wee Wee

Fertility clinics didn't exist in prehistoric times, so we haven't evolved desires to exploit them.

Offalycool

Take it to the science forum.

Offalycool

Offalycool wrote: »

Take it to the science forum.

Please ignore, drunk post!

waitinforatrain

You're assuming that the desire to procreate is conscious. It's just our natural tendency to do what is most pleasurable (i.e. have sex).

We pursue happiness/fulfillment (or to "lessen your own misery", whichever your perspective). Love/sex is a very basic need, and having chemistry with another person is rarely if ever a function of the rational mind.

Edit:

JayK wrote:

Sex is the goal, reproduction is the result.

There's the words I was lookin for...

waitinforatrain

JayK wrote: »

Women don't want to breed with an inferior specimen. Or rather, they want to breed with the most superior specimen possible. This is because females have to make a huge contribution to their offspring - in humans 9 months of difficult pregnancy. After that they can dispose of the child but that means the contribution of the pregnancy wasted, so in truth they're also stuch with raising the child.

What contribution does a man make? One load of sperm, that he'd probably just have wasted anyway. Hence, biologically, men want to mate with as many women as possible. There's some interesting experiments carried out regarding this. Like after sex, a man's sex drive for the women he's slept with wanes. But if the possibility of sex with another woman appears, his sex drive returns. I'm fairly sure that's from "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker so unfortunately I can't reference it.

Hehe interesting. I was talking with friends a while back, about why if a woman sleeps with a load of guys she's looked down on, but if a guy does it he's cheered. Someone pointed out that if a woman sleeps with 5 guys there's only 1 baby, but if a guy sleeps with 5 girls, that's up to 5 babies. Just an idea but interesting nonetheless