"Some comments made by Solovieff are also relevant in this context. He showed the error in thinking that the reason for sexual love is the multiplication of the species. Many organisms in both the vegetable and the animal realms reproduce asexually; the sexual fact occurs in the reproduction not of the organisms in general but of the higher organisms. Therefore “the meaning of sexual differentiation (and of sexual love) is to be sought not at all in the idea of the survival of the species and its multiplication, but only in the idea of the higher organism.” Furthermore, “The higher we climb up the ladder of organisms, the more the power of multiplication decreases, whereas the force of mutual attraction increases. . . . Although sexual love reaches its greatest importance and strength in man, he reproduces at a lower rate than the animal species.” It seems, therefore, that sexual love and multiplication of the species are in an inverted ratio to each other: The stronger the one, the weaker the other. When we consider the two extremes of animal life, if multiplication without sexual love is at the lower end, then at the upper end, the summit, there will be sexual love that can exist with an almost complete lack of reproduction, but with the fullest expression of passion. It has only recently been affirmed that “sexual passion almost always involves a deviation of instinct . . . in other words, reproduction of the species is almost always avoided in the presence of sexual passion.” This indicates that we are dealing here with two different facts, the first of which cannot be presented as the means or tool of the other. In its higher forms, eros has an independent and not deducible character, which is not impaired by anything that may be materially required for its arousal in the sphere of physical love."