So if we take our axiom of propagation and maintenance of genes in the gene pool we arrive at the idea that the more children one has and the more genetic success and this is what we will be more inclined to. Just an endless sea of random and uncommitted copulation, and men using women as genetic vessels. Splendid. But the goal of the game isn't so much so mate as much as possible but to maximize the amount of related genetic material in the gene pool in the future. Women have some tricks up their sleeves as well. It can often take years before a woman will let a man mate with her and this simply isn't time that most men are willing to waste. Years of courtship can act as incentive to stick it out and stay with a partner. What is more genetically advantageous, having a child every two years with the same mate after 5 years of courtship (15 years = 5 children) or flitting around to different mates trying to impregnate them and escape? This sort of fuck-everything-and-run theory doesn't give women the credit they deserve. A quality woman is usually intelligent and perceptive enough to discern who is loyal and sincere and who is a man-whore. Combine a dumb woman and a disinterested man-whore man and the child isn't going to have any advantage to speak of. Which brings me to my next point: what about survival and propagation of posterity? Fatherless children tend to have all sorts of economic and psychological disadvanteges. I contend and I think many would agree that a stable, united family setting is the most advantageous for not only the creation of offspring but to ensure their survival and propagation themselves. Usually propagation in our modern setting has more to do with how many children one can support successfully and that tends to boil down to finances. Of course nothing is set in stone but the most advantageous propagation strategy is not so black and white as it might appear. Not to mention the fact that nobody tends to want to mate with an old dude they just met and that window of opportunity usually dissipates within a decade or two. More evidence for the stable family setting.
Or perhaps we can recognize that we are not our genetics and are increasingly disposed to subverting our genetic instructions and manipulating our pleasure mechanisms as ends in themselves rather than means for our genes to force their own ends. Hence childless couples or asexual humans. In the light of higher consciousness, what is "natural" is hardly of consequence or meaning anymore. What is natural is whatever we feel like.
Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.
Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!