skip to main |
skip to sidebar
~~~Thoughts on Love~~~ {9}
But the different between primal mating rituals and falling in love is quite apparent to me: unlike mating instincts, the feeling of love did not arise 'for the evolutionary purpose of promoting reproduction. If anything, love is counter evolutionary because it thwarts promiscuity, which, in turn, minimizes reproduction.' Love is an emotion, and emotions did not arise for mating purpose. Humans evolved to be emotional creatures for the purpose of banding together. Emotions undeniably create a sense of attachment between humans, which cause them to assemble together in this battle of the "survival of the fittest". Assemblage provides a species with a multitude of advantages, such as strength in numbers. Perhaps this is were the feeling of love comes from. Perhaps not. Either way, it is ridiculous to make the claim that we love for the sake of reproducing. Then again, if humans originally loved (Or at least felt emotions which evolved into love) for the sake of assembling and maintaining survival, and survival is essential for us to reproduce, then could one make the claim that love's indirect, although function, is to preserve reproduction? It seems as if the scientist's argument has to make so many links and jumps at this point that it lacks credibility, at least in my eyes. One could, as an analogy, make the claim that the big bang indirectly caused me to spill coffee on my T-shirt yesterday, when really we ought to attribute my T-shirt's coffee stain to my clumsiness. Of course, the scientists are only drawing two rather simple links. Perhaps my big--bang example is not analogous. Perhaps it is. Perhaps I don't care anymore. Okay, regardless of where you personally think love's origins lie, I hope that both you and I can agree with the following piece of information. Love has undeniably evolved to something much more intricate and meaningful than what it used to be. We no longer need love to survive Or reproduce in today's civilized world, but we continue to value it anyway. Can scientists please, at the very least, grant me that? If not, what is a poor hopeless romantic such as myself to do? ~~~~THE END~~~~
But the different between primal mating rituals and falling in love is quite apparent to me: unlike mating instincts, the feeling of love did not arise 'for the evolutionary purpose of promoting reproduction. If anything, love is counter evolutionary because it thwarts promiscuity, which, in turn, minimizes reproduction.' Love is an emotion, and emotions did not arise for mating purpose. Humans evolved to be emotional creatures for the purpose of banding together. Emotions undeniably create a sense of attachment between humans, which cause them to assemble together in this battle of the "survival of the fittest". Assemblage provides a species with a multitude of advantages, such as strength in numbers. Perhaps this is were the feeling of love comes from. Perhaps not. Either way, it is ridiculous to make the claim that we love for the sake of reproducing. Then again, if humans originally loved (Or at least felt emotions which evolved into love) for the sake of assembling and maintaining survival, and survival is essential for us to reproduce, then could one make the claim that love's indirect, although function, is to preserve reproduction? It seems as if the scientist's argument has to make so many links and jumps at this point that it lacks credibility, at least in my eyes. One could, as an analogy, make the claim that the big bang indirectly caused me to spill coffee on my T-shirt yesterday, when really we ought to attribute my T-shirt's coffee stain to my clumsiness. Of course, the scientists are only drawing two rather simple links. Perhaps my big--bang example is not analogous. Perhaps it is. Perhaps I don't care anymore. Okay, regardless of where you personally think love's origins lie, I hope that both you and I can agree with the following piece of information. Love has undeniably evolved to something much more intricate and meaningful than what it used to be. We no longer need love to survive Or reproduce in today's civilized world, but we continue to value it anyway. Can scientists please, at the very least, grant me that? If not, what is a poor hopeless romantic such as myself to do? ~~~~THE END~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment