Introduction, Then: Genes, Memes and Why Contraception is Natural

I first began blogging on LiveJournal.com in April 2001 writing as Psyche under the username plutopsyche (now defunct). It was a personal journal, with details of my life, the events I attended and others I hosted, with updates on where my work was being published, book and media reviews, and so on. Frankly, it didn’t have a lot of focus.

Plutonica.net represents an evolutionary transition; its general focus will be reflections on subjects that interest me; namely philosophy, spirituality, the occult, and, of course, books and esoteric literature.

Recently I read Richard Dawkins‘ The Selfish Gene, where the fundamental theory of the book centres around the idea of the selfish gene, that “[t]he fundamental unit, the prime mover of life, is the replicator”¹. However, when the subject of contraception came up, he wrote: “Contraception is sometimes attacked as ‘unnatural’. So it is, very unnatural” (p. 117), further noting that “We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them. As already noted, we do so in a small way every time we use contraception”².

I found this very surprising given the deftness he displayed reconciling other seemingly trickier angles with persuasive arguments supporting the selfish gene theory. Many possible explanations immediately suggest themselves, whether taken from a genetic or memetic stance.

We’ll start with genetic, and focus specifically on humans, as I’m not aware of any other animals that practice active birth control. From a “gene’s eye” view (to use Dawkins’ term) a gene “acts” (or evolves) to best ensure its propagation. It makes intuitive sense that a gene could evolve (perhaps in an extended phenotype) that would favour propagation in offspring raised by an adult pair-bonded couple.

Broadly speaking a gene, or rather, the organism bearing it – the baby – would have a better chance of survival raised by an adult pair-bonded couple than by a child or single parent. (Yes, this is a sweeping generalization. Bear with me.) “Adult” is specified, as neither children nor teenagers generally possess sufficient independent resources to fend for themselves, let alone provide for offspring: in short, rarely can they afford to foot the bill. Children come with a lot of expenses and usually require at least an eighteen year commitment (though this age seems constantly on the rise). A pair-bonded teenage couple has slightly more going for it: two people to cover the time and expense of child-rearing, but immaturity can still be a problem. Of course, the single adult parent faces similar time/resource challenges to the single teenage parent, though s/he may have the benefit of broader life-experience and ability to cope. (Please note that this certainly does not imply that these circumstances make it impossible for a child to grow up well in such circumstances, this is grossly simplified for illustrative purposes. Please don’t read anything more into it.)

So, whether we assume a couple uses biological contraceptive methods (noting time of ovulation and basing sexual activity on the body’s calendar), or the invention of artificial contraceptives to prevent undesirable pregnancies, the use of either seems perfectly “natural”. Suddenly, preventing undesirable pregnancies in teenagers, one-night stands, and so on seems to make perfect sense. Many couples “wait” to have children until they’re in a committed relationship (perhaps even married), or have established themselves in some way; we can see this with even this surface consideration of these issues.

The effects of this “waiting” seem to suggest it’s better for the individual would-be parent and hir environment as well. Consider the incredible decrease in crime rates that resulted after abortions became legal in America as suggested by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in the delightfully quirky and insightful Freakonomics. In discussing a Romanian case where abortion was legalized and, after a time, the ruling was overturned they write: “The children born in the wake of the abortion ban were much more likely to become criminals than children who born earlier…Researchers found that in the instances where the women was denied an abortion, she often resented her baby and failed to provide it with a good home. Even when controlling for the income, age, education, and health of the likely other, researches found that these children too were more like to become criminals”³. This may sound extreme, but when other (perfectly “natural”) contraceptive methods fail, preventing the birth of an unwanted child still makes sense.

On to the memetic reasoning: Dawkins coined the term meme in the original 1976 release of The Selfish Gene to serve as “a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation”⁴, the effects of which may or may not be consciously realized.

The concept “birth control” might represent one meme. Surrounding ideas about birth control could constitute a larger meme-complex. For example, the idea that birth control is a wonderful, useful aid for the prevention of pregnancy could be tied to notions about what ideal conditions for conceiving ought to be. Another might be that contraception is “against god”, which might be coupled with a belief that sexual intercourse should only happen for procreation. We can begin see how these “meme clusters” arise, and how one idea can attach to another – and that’s a fascinating topic which we may explore at a later date. For now let’s continue our focus on contraception and whether or not it is “natural”.

Levitt and Dubner highlight several reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion, though these reasons could equally apply to birth control pills, condoms, or any number of contraceptive methods. They write “…when a woman does not want to have a child, she usually has good reason. She may be unmarried or in a bad marriage, she may consider herself too poor to raise a child. She may think her life is too unstable or unhappy, or she may think that her drinking or drug use will damage the baby’s health. She may believe that she is too young or hasn’t yet received enough education. She may want a child badly but in a few years, not now. For any of a hundred reasons, she may feel that she cannot provide a home environment that is conducive to raising a healthy and productive child”⁵. This suggests reasoning influenced by cultural upbringing in adhering to specific ideas or ideals for raising “a healthy and productive child.”

While Levitt and Dubner write specifically about women above many couples (male/female, female/female, male/male and everything in between) choose to wait until they’re established, both secure in their relationship (often denoted by marriage) and often work to become financially and materially able to sustain the growth of another creature in their home – all the better to ensure the conditions are more favourable for the survival of their offspring. It’s easy to see that whether approached from a genetic or memetic standpoint, and whatever method of contraception is employed – it seems like a bloody good option to have available – and naturally so.

Though I read the footnoted 30^th anniversary edition put out in 2006, Dawkins may recant this stance on contraception being “unnatural” in later books – I don’t know, this is the first I’ve read by him thusfar. I should hope that he would, as he can hardly think it to be supernatural given his irreligious stance, and I’m not sure what else that leaves.

Popularity: 15%

Footnotes:

1. p. 264 [back]
2. p 332 [back]
3. p. 136 [back]
4. p. 192, emphasis original [back]
5. p. 137-138 [back]

Related posts:

1. More on Doing It Naturally
2. Humans Are Natural Creatures
3. Shelf Life: Introduction and Graphic Novel Edition
4. Masculinism and gender equality
5. On evolution