This is a great perspective for examining the nature vs culture (humanist vs animal?) schism, a thought experiment about "what is morality?"

I'd suggest that morality is as much a survival strategy as is early procreation. This is because culture/civilization is ultimately a survival strategy too.

The distinction is not the character of the strategies, but the character of the source. One source is genetic (evolution including "animal" instincts) the other is intelligent reasoning.

However, intelligent reasoning was created by nature/evolution too. The cognitive dissonance in understanding these issues about who we are is that intelligence is an accessory we only use sometimes. Instinct and reason are at constant "war" as to how to survive.

Intelligence created a structure for survival (civilization) then apparently realized for civilization to work, procreation had to be delayed to a later age.

In this light, we couldn't tame our sexual urges with reason alone, so we created morality as a emotional force. An emotional force is more powerful than reason for getting our instincts to cooperate with the strategy of civilization.

This all sounds "forced" and "schizo-phrenic" because it is -- the "schism" is between our reason and our instinct in deciding how to best survive.

In short, we're not in conflict with nature. The conflict is within us.