Evolutionarily speaking, when a man impregnates a woman, if he follows up and protects her, it becomes more likely that his genes will be passed on. The feeling men experience as love is just a biological implementation to drive this behavior. There is absolutely no need evolutionarily for a woman to protect (care for) a man. The feeling women call love is just a biological drive to snag a man into protecting her until she is less vulnerable. There is no protecting behavior that must be done by the woman (or anyone really) towards the man because, as we all know men are disposable. I am convinced that these two very different drives are distinguishable down to a molecular level. The fact that the same word is used in the English language to describe both is unfortunate and misleading.

​

I am worried that as a society we are developing the consensus that natural = good and that we should not fight any biological instincts. Evolution has no sense of good vs evil and should not be used for any type of guidance. I think the people who engineered religions had these very things in mind, and now that science is becoming the new religion our society is losing moral guidance and becoming increasingly materialistic and instant-gratification based. I am not religious myself but am still searching for meaning in life despite having lost faith in society. Mars colony civilization reboot anyone? Anyways just a rant from a long time lurker (new account for anonymity).