Would "Love" still be relevant to the human experience if we didn't have a biological need to reproduce?
Posted by: Blade-of-TruthIf we didn't have a need to reproduce, for instance, because we became immortal - would Love still be relevant to us?
Yes
No
77%
27 votes
23%
8 votes
Good question.
No, It isn't relevant anyway
If there was never such thing as children, there wouldn't be a you and a me. You see if it wasn't for children, you would have never heard of the term "child at heart".
Whenever I see my niece or nephew, it takes away any negativity once so ever. It reminds me of the joy and love new offspring can bring into our lives. Without kids we'd have nothing. Without kids, we wouldn't have a future. I plan on having kids. That is if something drastic doesn't happen first.
I find it funny how many people are relating a species having no biological reproduction to an individual choice not to reproduce
Could you explain Snip?
Many people saying yes are saying they do not plan on having children, but the biological condition is still there. If there is no biological need to reproduce, meaning there exists no sexual reproduction, then the evolution process would not have given our brain the emotion of love because it serves no purpose outside of reproduction.
Left side is acting as if it is a choice of reproduction, the right side is acting as if there is no biological reproduction. The answers would be different for each.
Speaking from a biblical standpoint.. It is good to be fertile and fruitful of life. Yes, in the physical sense too.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 
I don't wanna have sex nor have children. That doesn't mean I still won't love someone.
Good answer Esocial!
You don't need to love someone to have sex with them.
Absolutely! Reproduction isn't mandatory, in life or love. But life without love -- that's sad.
Love is not based on reproduction.
Love is about appreciating the qualities of our mate. We share our qualities and each other. There is nothing in logic that says that love means that you have to have children.
Love doesn't always imply romance or sex, so yes.
I'm a romantic, so for me life is worth less without love. For strictly scientific reasons, love is healthy (when it's not..), a community is stronger than an individual, everyone needs a little help sometimes, loneliness is unhealthy.
Love could just mean being friends with people or dating someone or whatever. I wouldn't mind loving someone and have some fun once in a while but i wouldn't marry or have kids even now i wouldn't
If you mean that we never had a biological reproduction and evolved as an asexual species, love would not exist. A true asexual species has no need for love and, as a result, would not have evolved in a way to have lust or love. If we evolved from a species that had sexual reproduction then we might have it, but not likely.
This depends on your definition of love. The de facto love that usually comes to mind is romantic love, which would not exist if there was no need to pair-bond and create lasting attachments between two people that would increase the odds of their offspring surviving. Friendship and platonic love would probably still exist, though, since humans are a social species and would still need mechanisms to form a cohesive and compatible group.
Love only exists to keep you with your mate. If we didnt need to reproduce we wouldnt need love therefore love wouldnt exist. Love is just an emotion like fear and joy.