Sex or kids? The ends versus the means.

Evolution. It’s nothing but cause and effect. It doesn’t have a force of its own.


What we have still out of our control are our instincts. And instincts have developed after being subjected to cause and effect over the last hundreds of millions of years.


Causes having sustainable effects thrived on earth, while unsustainable causes couldn’t thrive and went extinct and erased themselves off the face of the earth.


We must always do only those things which lead towards sustainability.



There are so many pursuits human beings are involved in today, they can be generally separated into two groups: ideological and genealogical. And ideas solely a being an offshoot of genes[1][2], what matters from a higher plane are genes.


The object of both these pursuits unequivocally being prosperity of the human species, the spread of the human genome, along with the best ideas which support our survival.


Prosperity does it come by recreation or procreation?


Prosperity definitely has no link to recreation. Realise that recreation is an end in itself and nothing flows beyond it.


Sex leads to release of dopamine[3] in the limbic[4] region, which in turn leads to happiness. And when dopamine is fully consumed by the body, sex ends.


As I had pointed out earlier that object of all human pursuits is prosperity and spread of humanity, meaning thereby every action should have a continuity and only those actions which have a continuity and lead to prosperity are logical and favourable for us to commit.


But if there are actions which are ends in itself i.e. protected sex, they don’t lead to the object of humankind – prosperity. Sex is only a means to a different end, attainment of something else.


That something else being procreation.

Only by having kids do human beings stand a chance to brave the threat of space and time, and that is the whole concept behind everything we do everyday.



Everything which relates to us – sports, education, economics, politics, philosophy stands for only one thing – a better future. And how would this future come? By spreading of the best genes and ideas. That is why we have only racial or ideological wars. We have to determine which race and whose ideas are the best. May the best race and ideas win and thrive. And the other genes and ideas be damned.


Today if we choose not to have kids due to the already burgeoning population, it might be a choice, but it would defeat the purpose of our existence. That purpose again being propagation of what we think is good and sustainable.


Simply put, say the smartest people on earth decide not to have children, we would lose on the best genes and ideas from the face of the earth on the event of their death. And that would also mean that all the stupid people would have a chance at having kids and in some time the world would be full of stupid genes and unsustainable ideas, thereby bringing the world to a quicker end.


Until such ideas  are practised or implemented one cannot know for sure, what is for the better and what is for the worse. A believer of Islam can go and fight a Christian because both see sustainability in their ideas. Therefore to avoid such dilemmas the onus is upon us to prefer ourselves. And this is what gives rise to survival of the fittest[5].


Survival of the fittest says that the smarter individual would get a chance at reproduction and would survive through his genes.


And now this is also what gives rise to the selfish gene theory[6] developed over time by the contributions made by different scientists.


Selfish gene theory says that even the individual is not important but the information he carries in his genes. If by sacrificing one individual a greater prosperity can be achieved elsewhere it would be most desirable.


That is why we can see suicide bombers and soldiers fighting alike because they have a belief that something better is going to happen somewhere else on account of this sacrifice.



Whatever you decide today about having kids or not, doesn’t free you of your obligation towards the pursuit of humanity. If you willfully give up it’s not only your genes which are suffering termination but it’s also in our interest that the best genes thrive.


If the world is already overloaded with people and if there is practically no place to stand, it is still in everyone’s interest to have wars, massacres, plagues just to secure enough resources for their offsprings.


If the world is the best place to live in, and the most ideal things are happening everywhere, it is still in everyone’s interest to procreate. Excellence is achieved in the pursuit of it. There can never be the last stop of excellence.


If the world has become a very dangerous place to live in, it is still better to afford your kids a chance of life, you never know what he or she might be capable of.



There has to strike a balance between resources and riders[7]. It’s not your duty to do that, as the world can balance itself in multiple ways. Resources and wars have always been inversely proportional[8]. As in, wars for resources is the best example of such balancing acts.


Satoshi Kanazawa had in his latest book[9] elucidated on the point on why

“if any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness.”

In the book, he goes on to say in a chapter called “Why Intelligent People Are the Ultimate Losers in Life” that all living organisms are “evolutionarily designed to reproduce” and that “reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.”


Whereas it was never meant to be a choice made by individuals about separating procreation from sex, modern human beings have corrupted their ways with it to escape from certain other repercussions. Maybe, this choice of separation of sex and procreation is one of those balancing acts intrinsic in the nature of nature.

Fucking end

5 thoughts on “Sex or kids? The ends versus the means.

  1. Kritika

    Dear Donnie,

    Don’t take this the wrong way but George Bernard Shaw kind of gave the answer to one of the things you are trying to propagate here: “Simply put, say the smartest people on earth decide not to have
    children, we would lose on the best genes and ideas from the face of the
    earth on the event of their death. And that would also mean that all
    the stupid people would have a chance at having kids and in some time
    the world would be full of stupid genes and unsustainable ideas, thereby
    bringing the world to a quicker end.”

    Once a beautiful woman approached Shaw and proposed him to get married. Her logic- the kid would get her good looks and his intellect.

    Shaw replied- “Madam, think what would happen if the kid got my looks and your brains?”

    1. DonnieAshok

      When genes collude only the dominant features take effect. Dominant features being better symmetry and ratio of physical features, and the capacity to have higher number of neurons making it possible to think better.
      Shaw’s reply maybe humorous but scientifically it would never hold ground.

      1. Kritika

        Dear Donnie,

        I am not denying that beauty or noetic capabilities are not transferred by genes.

        Your logic may be textbook correct but for a moment try to look at the world around you and see what really happens. Even in a picture perfect family with highly intelligent husband and wife the possibility of all their children having higher number of neurons is very slim and is not actually seen in real life. The same couple give birth to children who each have their own unique genetics- a conglomeration of dominant genetic traits of not only the couple but also generations before them. Such children don’t all carry the best genetic features of the couple. It is not a rule of thumb that children of intelligent/beautiful people are born intelligent/beautiful. It is not as simple as x+x=2x.

        Also, there are many genetic factors which remain dormant in some generations and trigger in other generations.

        Further on dominant genetic features, intelligence or beauty or symmetry are not the only dominant genetic features of humans. The same person who is intelligent or beautiful may also carry other dominant negative genetic traits like aggression or a disease like cancer or diabetes.

        1. DonnieAshok

          Kritika, true that.
          You are considering the exceptions of nature, the rule of diseases, mutations. There can’t be a rule of thumb in the process of nature, even the best genes may not get to conceive if they come across a debilitating accident.

          While conceiving the chances of having a healthy and a genetically superior baby is much higher than the chances of having a diseased or deformed baby.
          Unless the probability of having a deformed or a diseased baby is known to be higher, people do conceive taking into account such risks. And it’s only rational to take such risks if the gain:risk is higher.

  2. Manohar Lal

    Does it guarantee that when two smart persons with “transcendental intelligent genes” copulate with each other will always bring an offspring of high intellect?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *