Maybe if we make a distinction between acquired "love" (boat) vs automatic "love", or rather a potential for "love" that is constantly surveying its options just for spreading seed. Ok, lets get a little abstract, since you attack me with the boat. Instead of a boat, it can also be, i dunno, a machine that gives you orgasms. Maybe love is a little wrong here so lets have 3 variables, input, output and dedication to the goal despite input > output. Dedication = love. We could say, for the sake of argument that there is a pill or machine that gives you the same amount of output/satisfaction as a relationship with a family, and it costs roughly the same. Whats the difference? Nagging, annoying children, dedicating your time to something that wont benefit humanity as much as dedicating your time to finding a cure for cancer.

And i talk about relationships and partners because its the most evident. Highschool kids think only about sex, they are walking monkeys (the thing i say holds no merit). And all that because of evolution. Were they not preoccupied with that, they could do stuff that they have chosen based on how much they get out of it. Look.. its not person deciding between love and material goods. Its more a brainless zombie taking love, while another thing that gives a similar amount of satisfaction can be chosen. The end result is the same, we can agree on that. Some hormones will be released and you will feel good in some way. But the path to that goal is whats important. If there was a man in the woods and he really wanted to ejaculate.. He can jerk it for 20 units of pleasure, or fuck the nearby pig for 35 units of measure, but 40% chance to get a pig disease. A rational man will choose the former, a monkey-zombie will choose the latter. I dont know.. can we agree on some parts? Some philosopher said that agreeing on a common deffinition is half the work :P