Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: The function of sex?
Keywords: Sociobiology, sex, morality, function, adaptations
Message-ID: <11997@uwm.edu>
Date: 9 May 91 12:58:54 GMT
References: <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 35

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.