Comment by Reggie on December 5, 2009 at 3:14am

i wonder if sexual pleasure is required of sentient species. or perhaps if it is necessarily caused by it

Neither.

Pleasure, as we know it, is most likely not experienced by many sexually reproducing species on this planet.

Comment by Dave G on December 5, 2009 at 4:05am

Yeah, we're just lucky that way.

Comment by Galen on December 5, 2009 at 4:19am

You might actually be on to something, considering that the only (known) species who engage in recreational sex are also the most intelligent species on the planet. At least, as far as I know, that would be humans, dolphins, and some lower primates (bonobos, for example).

Comment by the human michael on December 5, 2009 at 11:09am

in response to reggie, we are the only sentient species of which we know, and the only other animals we know to engage in sexual activity without intent of reproduction are porpoise. once we abandon animal instinct as a reason for acting, how would the species propagate? could you imagine an intelligent, self aware animal swimming around the ocean in a huge bait ball releasing sperm and eggs into the water, putting themselves in certain danger from surrounding predators, and not knowing why theyre doing it? surely they would be aware of the danger. for many, the fear of death would outweigh the desire to procreate if there is no pleasure or reward in the activity. it seems you are a little dismissive without having any real argument, other than that you don't know of animals that have sex for pleasure (though i just named one,) besides humans - which isn't the question.

Comment by Kirk Holden on December 5, 2009 at 12:41pm

There are asexual humans (alas) who do not have a sex drive (a genetic selection) and do not have sex. This phenotype is rare for obvious reasons.

Re: self-awareness. The machinery for self-awareness was around for many generations until the tipping point where multiple phenotypes with the machinery could interact. The interaction bootstrapped the self-awareness.

From E.O. Wilson -- Imagine a human raised in a world without color. An environment where artificially only black, white and shades of grey were available. This person would have no subjective experience; would not know what it is like to see green, yellow or blue. Once exposed to the rest of the spectrum, the awareness of color would boot-strap within the machinery in the brain. This low level experience would be available without social interaction.

From Dennett and Pinker: Not the same thing with language -- the machinery existed before the awareness or the good trick of the theory of mind. That being the belief that "I" (the self-plex in the brain) have a mind and that other people that act/react/interact like me have minds too. We could mimic and copy memes pre-language to make hand-axes and pointed sticks from Homo Erectus, Habilis, Egaster, Heidlbergesus. Both H. Sapiens and H. Neandertalus had something like language and proto self-awareness contemporaneously. H. Sapiens pulled ahead on the straightaway when our social clusters drew upon our genetic machinery to stick it to our deprived cousins.

But self-awareness had to evolve through interaction with other phenotypes with the required machinery and could not boot-strap itself without social interaction. Of course that's my opinion and it could be wrong.

Comment by a7 on December 5, 2009 at 12:45pm

Have we all see the stunning lassie on Dn's blog, ffs man


take care man

Comment by Doug Reardon on December 5, 2009 at 1:36pm

I think having any drive satiated would be pleasurable no matter what species experienced it, what other motivator would there be?

Comment by Reggie on December 5, 2009 at 1:42pm

in response to reggie, we are the only sentient species of which we know, and the only other animals we know to engage in sexual activity without intent of reproduction are porpoise.

We are? I would have figured that the exact opposite is true. Humans may be the only species that does have sex with the intent to reproduce. I highly doubt most other animals have figured out that their carnal pleasures lead to progeny, let alone plan for it.

once we abandon animal instinct as a reason for acting, how would the species propagate? could you imagine an intelligent, self aware animal swimming around the ocean in a huge bait ball releasing sperm and eggs into the water, putting themselves in certain danger from surrounding predators, and not knowing why theyre doing it?

Yeah, I could. But what do you mean by intelligent? Intelligence equivalent to a human? I've known many people that have done stupid things for love, if not reproduction itself. But the two are intertwined neatly.

surely they would be aware of the danger. for many, the fear of death would outweigh the desire to procreate if there is no pleasure or reward in the activity

You'll have to explain what you mean by "desires to procreate". The urge to hump is not quite the same as having intent to procreate. Until I know what you really mean, I don't know what to say without fear of unintentionally misrepresenting your argument.

it seems you are a little dismissive without having any real argument, other than that you don't know of animals that have sex for pleasure (though i just named one,) besides humans - which isn't the question.

Was I being dismissive? How? I figured if you wanted a more thorough debate on this, you would have put it in the discussions area. Blog posts are not very conducive to these kinds of conversations.

And how did you come to think that I don't know of any other animals that have sex for pleasure? You should reread what I wrote. I know of a few animals off the top of my head that have sex for pleasure only, and not just porpoises.

And not to be pedantic, but most animals do have sex for pleasure, rather than procreation. But I think I know what you are trying to say. My point was and is that not all life forms that reproduce sexually can be said to derive pleasure, as we would know it, from the process. But you did say "sentient" beings, so that would cast off most, if not all of the organisms that I refer to and maybe led to some confusion. My bad.

To better answer your original question? My answer would be a speculative "no". A species that was sufficiently intelligent and aware would need not derive pleasure from sex to reproduce. If they have a desire to propagate the species but get no sexual pleasure, then I would think that this could be achieved. Would it be a stable tactic that would allow births to meet or exceed deaths? I don't know, that would be interesting to find out, if we could. But, it just so happens that throughout evolutionary history that those individuals that liked to get their hump on were more successful than those that were preoccupied with other pursuits. And so now, sentient beings tend to like to shag.

But how would you propose that an sentient, sexual reproducing species would come about with no pleasure in sex for all individuals within that species? I don't see how such a lineage that is not rewarded for sexual acts could persist long enough to get to a point where a species became sentient.

Comment by the human michael on December 5, 2009 at 5:49pm

haha much better. i do enjoy discussions. i guess i shouldn't have attached things like desire and intent to animal instincts and urges. i should have been more clear. so would sexual pleasure necessarily be a result of evolution and natural selection in sentient, sexually reproducing beings? that makes sense. i guess those who enjoy reproducing would do it more often, and have more offspring, propagating, perhaps, that same enjoyment of reproductive action.
i guess i should pay more attention to word choice. it does seem you wrote that pleasure is not experienced by many, rather than by any. and i shouldn't have excluded other primates. excuse me.

Comment by Reggie on December 5, 2009 at 8:22pm

those who enjoy reproducing would do it more often, and have more offspring, propagating, perhaps, that same enjoyment of reproductive action

Exactly!

So, unless their was some other driving factor, some equivalent to sexual urges and pleasure, then I don't see how the species would ever come to be. But then, we are just replacing one thing with a facsimile of itself.

Something has to drive the species to procreate. If it is not their desire to hump, then something else. With humans, it could be knowledge that our species will die out unless we bump nasties.

i guess i should pay more attention to word choice. it does seem you wrote that pleasure is not experienced by many, rather than by any. and i shouldn't have excluded other primates. excuse me.

Not a problem. I kind of forgot you said "sentient" a few times in my responses. No harm no foul?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page