Evolution of Asexuality

[Autumn Season]

I hope this is the right place to start this topic in. :)

Warning: I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. Also, I'll be talking about sex, but not in a graphic way. Now if you still want to read further, please go on. ;)

I sometimes read and hear, that everyone HAS to have babies. That's what NATURE (or God) wants us to do.

Having tried dating via Acebook and Platonic Partners, Lisa hopes to soon see the emergence of asexual bars and clubs, admitting she would love a relationship. ‘I want companionship, a hand to hold, a shoulder to cry on, someone to celebrate the good things with… everything apart from the sex. I suppose I understand why people struggle with this concept. All creatures supposedly exist to continue the species, but I don’t want kids or sex. I’m essentially a biological dead end.’

Source: http://www.marieclai...ssed-world.html

Here is my THEORY:

Asexuals are NOT a mistake of nature (or God or whatever you believe in). "All creatures supposedly exist to continue the species", yes. "Everyone needs to have children", no.

(1) Let's imagine we all live in a community in caves, no civilization around whatsoever. Now let's simplify things and say, that all the women are pregnant as the result of everyone's sexual attraction towards each other. What happens to the women? Some give birth and live on, many die. Especially during harsh times like winter, droughts, lack of food, ... Only a very low number of women will survive giving birth. There will hardly be any ladies in the community who reached the menopause.

Now, what will happen to the babies, after their mother died or is weakened? The other members of the community will take care of them. But it's tough. Everyone is busy. There is so much to do: hunting, making clothes, collecting ressources, treating the sick, searching for water, ... It doesn't help that there are only a couple of young women and girls around and they are all pregnant. It also doesn't help, that the men are wasting their time (since time is a luxury good) to have sex or be constantly sexually distracted. So the babies and small children will be unnecessarily neglected. In fact all the daily tasks which need to be done, so that the community can survive, will be neglected because of all the sexual tension, the pregnancies and possible wounds or diseases because of sex.

(2) Now let's imagine, that one half of the community has sexual interests, while the other half doesn't. Now, the asexual half will do everything, that needs to be done to ensure the survival of the community. Inventing weapons, carrying water, collecting berries, building shelters and so on and so on. Everyone, including the asexuals will benefit by those tasks. The allosexual half will indulge in sexual activities without having to pay the price, the price being for example not being able to hunt and thus starving. (I know, I am using extreme examples.) The pregnant women, the children, the sick and elderly will be taken care of better, because (1) asexuals have more time to take care of them, (2) asexuals will prioritize them, since sex isn't their priority (I know, that for allosexuals sex doesn't have to be a priority, neither. I'm just simplifying matters.) and (3) there are many not-pregnant and thus more able women and girls around. There will also be more women, who live longer, because they don't have to give birth or they give birth much later. They will have more experience and thus they will contribute to the community.

My CONCLUSION is, that asexuals are necessary for communities. They can contribute so much. In fact, they can contribute MORE to the community, BECAUSE they have no interest in sex. So I believe, that asexuals are a product of evolution, in order to ensure the survival of the species.

I'm sorry, if my rambling was very clumsy. But I hope, that you understand what I'm getting at. Also, it would be great, if you could share your thoughts on why asexuals are good the way they are (or why not).

Cheers!

[LadyWallflower]

I believe a similar theory has been mentioned in regards to homosexuality. It is proposed that have some homosexual members being part of a community is beneficial because they can help with the child raising, and with orphans. Such a similar argument can be made to asexuals. Also since homosexuality and asexuality have been found in the animal kingdom, the traits cannot be overly negative if they have survived this long under evolution.

[Member54880]

In a situation like that, group cohesion is absolutely critical, as everyone needs to work towards the survival of the whole group. People who are interested in sex would often have to put it aside, because they won't have the time for it. More generally, individuals will often need to put their wants aside in order to assist in the group's needs.

Pregnancies would still be needed to continue the next generation, but in order to prevent the scenario of too many pregnancies at once, and the consequences of that which you've mentioned, there'd probably have to be a planned limit to how many pregnancies could be allowed at once. That limit would need to be based on how many babies the group knows they could provide for with their resources. It'd be beneficial though if not everyone wanted children, so that there are some people who don't have to divide their time and attention between childrearing and any other task, so that there always will be some people working on the other tasks.

[Autumn Season]

In a situation like that, group cohesion is absolutely critical, as everyone needs to work towards the survival of the whole group. People who are interested in sex would often have to put it aside, because they won't have the time for it. More generally, individuals will often need to put their wants aside in order to assist in the group's needs.

I totally agree and it's nice, that you mentioned this.

Also, I don't know how allosexuals feel, so it's difficult to say how they would act in one situation or another. However since people of different sexualities do feel differently, they are likely to act differently and that is why I believe, that mixed sexuality communities will have another, maybe even higher chance of survival than same sexuality communities.

Pregnancies would still be needed to continue the next generation, but in order to prevent the scenario of too many pregnancies at once, and the consequences of that which you've mentioned, there'd probably have to be a planned limit to how many pregnancies could be allowed at once.

This sounds a little complicated. First of all, did cave people know that sex leads to pregnancy? Some children are afraid of kissing the opposite sex, because they think that will lead to the birth of a baby. So... I don't think that a planned birth reduction would have been possible.

[R_1]

Asexuality IMHO exists simply because of how organisms became so developed to the point where some of them has the ability to be aware of that, and the absence of the sexual interest in the brain has always existed since that point. There are people who are born blind, some others who are born deaf, and so on. Also, some people turned deaf, and some people turned blind through problems that are not due to physical impacts. So, can asexuality fall under this and even personality are affected by changes to the brain. I would know because my sexuality was dead since years ago. It's just not apparent as it is now as humans now know the concept of asexuality.

[Archon]

I like your theory that asexuals can help a species survive by caring for others in their group. I think this is supported by the fact that non-reproductive helpers are crucial for the survival of children in many primate species like tamarins and marmosets, and because it has been observed that some animals are asexual.

However, saying that asexuals are necessary for communities is a stretch. It might be nice to have asexuals around but they aren't absolutely necessary; you can have a community of all heterosexual people, or all homosexual people, or any other kind of people and they'll probably be fine. Also, saying that asexuals contribute more to a community than others simply because they are asexual is presumptuous in my opinion. Everyone in a community contributes something different to that community, and all contributions are important.

Asexuality IMHO exists simply because of how organisms became so developed to the point where some of them has the ability to be aware of that, and the absence of the sexual interest in the brain has always existed since that point. There are people who are born blind, some others who are born deaf, and so on. Also, some people turned deaf, and some people turned blind through problems that are not due to physical impacts. So, can asexuality fall under this and even personality are affected by changes to the brain. I would know because my sexuality was dead since years ago. It's just not apparent as it is now as humans now know the concept of asexuality.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but asexuality isn't some final achievement of evolution. It's as much of a development as other orientations. Plus, sexuality is fluid, and people can become more asexual than before but there are also people who become more allosexual than before.

[R_1]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but asexuality isn't some final achievement of evolution. It's as much of a development as other orientations. Plus, sexuality is fluid, and people can become more asexual than before but there are also people who become more allosexual than before.

What I'm saying is that asexuality as defined as lack of sexual attraction is something that's expected to exist through evolution as there is a point when some set of brains are developed enough to be capable of experiencing sexual attraction, and thus also the existence of the lack of sexual attraction can arise from that much in the same way that someone might lack the ability to see while sight is a thing. It's hard to word it, but this is what I'm trying to say. Someone can lose vision, and then there are people who loses their sexuality over time. All the byproduct of the brain.

[loomborn]

The problem with your theory is that you assume the fact that living beings evolve FOR something, when actually they evolve FROM something. You have to imagine your body like a hyper-macro-structure where a huge amount of chemical reactions are taking place at the same time. They doesn't stop because you keep having a metabolism, constantly adding reactives like oxygen and carbohydrates, just exactly when we try to create NH3 in chemical factories.

Now, when the chemical reaction is so large and complex and happens at this whole huge level, that the structure has more chances to disrupt itself - in the sense of changing something minuscule inside the machinery. Something like the making of a protein your body uses to keep your skin together, or something inside your DNA, is altered during these processes of metabolism: whether during the copy of RNA, which causes changes only to the individual; during the cell replication, when cells are less able to preserve its structure unaltered by radiation, causing mutations; or during the fertilization of a female egg, when two types of information merge together. All these changes are the ones which are responsible of population variability, details such as the colour of your skin or how a nose is more or less formed.

But the sexual orientation doesn't appear to have a definite relation with genetics*. DNA is probably important when your sexual orientation is determined before birth, but it's not decisive. As it's been mentioned, the body is the most giant and complex chemical reaction and not all the things can be predicted. Things like neurological processes and specific cell organization are so chemically complicated that you need more than a bunch of nucleobase pair trios, you need thousands of chains. This makes it really difficult to predict future reactions further than the ovule fertilization.

Actually, during the gestation period, it's all really chaotic. It's the time when the brain is formed and even though the body has a general "instruction manual" to lead itself its construction, some things are not specifically included. You have the blocks of LEGO, and those blocks of LEGO have all different shapes so you can deduce how they all fit together with other pieces. But some of them may fit in more than two places at once, they have less than a fifty percent probability of ending up suiting in one of them, which means other blocks, that could only fit into this place, cannot now. And, indeed, this causes an effect in the rest of the process that may be or may not be relevant in the resolution.

Sexual orientation is possibly a result of that chemical freedom. Maybe genetics could support a determined sexual orientation with, for example, having a molecule recipe not present in most of other individuals, but what you are is only materialized when your brain is materialized as a living structure. And in the middle of that, anything can happen. Maybe the accumulation of certain changes causes a general variety of individuals. Obviously, not everyone will feel the same, and that makes sense, biochemicals don't occur always exactly in the same way... but their results manage to assemble each other, and that's what move us together.

What benefits can this version of a brain bring to a species? Probably none, but that's not necessarily bad. Millions of mutations are generated in an individual during their life and they are pointless because they don't appear to affect their functioning at all! However, they are not more than events, and brains are not people. You are people, an individual. And I think a sentient individual matters in this context much more than a bunch of chemicals. If you are not sexually attracted to anyone, shove it, you like dinosaurs and reading books, perhaps drinking or having someone next to you and laughing... That's never uncool if it's important to you - your life is yours, not the species'. In evolution, there is not direction, no one has a real function in life...

Those pointless mutations? Well, they don't take part in the chemical reaction of the body, do you think they have been removed from their genetic places? No, the living being will have not got killed because of them but the living being can't get rid of them either. Nope, it is stuck with us :P We will always be making an appearance on the stage.

*There has not been, however, a conclusive investigation that explains what causes sexual variations, so take it all as a bit of an especulation.

[Autumn Season]

You're pretty cool, loomborn, with all your knowledge and the way you explain things intelligibly.

The point you're making is that while evolution itself doesn't have a plan for us, every life is valuable. What is important to the individual is what matters in their life. Right?

I like it. ^^

[loomborn]

You're pretty cool, loomborn, with all your knowledge and the way you explain things intelligibly.

The point you're making is that while evolution itself doesn't have a plan for us, every life is valuable. What is important to the individual is what matters in their life. Right?

I like it. ^^

Hey, and why not? Nature doesn't have a plan for any of us, if things happen, they happen because there is a risk of happening. Life is the result of its great yield, it doesn't say "from now on i decide that my meaning in the universe is hooking up and creating little versions of me", it's an automatic process. If asexuals usually don't have the urge to unchain that process it's because, chemically, the reaction is inefficient for that action and welll... If that means not reproducing ourselves... whatever, we are four losers in comparison to the whole humanity, we are not going to extict anyone. So, let's live our lives. :D

(gosh i like these topics so much and cant stop talking, sorry, it's really interesting to me)

[Autumn Season]

(gosh i like these topics so much and cant stop talking, sorry, it's really interesting for me)

Haha, go ahead! ;D

I just randomly thought of the phrase: "Life is what happens while you're busy making plans"