>If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction.
If this is how nature intended, why does it require thousands of years of technological progress to get there?
It's completely erroneous to think that nature "intends" anything. That would require intellect (at least a little), and that's only within brains, to the best of our knowledge.
Things happen, in evolution and elsewhere, when random chance and external pressures come together.
I don't mean "nature" as an explanation for action, as in your second line, but as a guide for it. The context in the article uses it in the guiding sense. My point is that the article uses "nature" in a very short-sighted and artificial sense. I do think that discussion of "nature" can be part of a broader teleology for human action, but that's obviously not what the author is attempted.
If this is how nature intended, why does it require thousands of years of technological progress to get there?