The Angry One wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
Not true, you clearly don't understand how a social mammal behaves in nature.
Trust me, a chimp DOES care if he/she sees another chimp suffering, just to give an example.
All the great apes are capable of showing empathy and act towards a moral code that's not so different form ours.
We are not so different from other social mammals, we're just furter evolved, that's all.
And where did I say other animals weren't capable of basic society?
The point is when you move into society you have gone beyond pure survival of the fittest. Evolution and nature aren't rules set in stones, they're reactions to enviroment. If those reactions eventually evolve social animals then survival of the fittest becomes a lesser factor.
I don't think you understand what survival of the fittest means.
It doesn't mean the strongest individual survives.
It means genetic traits that are the most condusive to getting passed on get passed on, its impossible for it really not to be true.
This doesn't just need to be at a individual level, this could be at a societal level. Societies share common genes among itself, so a "self sacrifice gene" is viable. An individual gibes up his life/chance of passing on genes other members of the society, which share unique and common genes survive.
Same with helping people gene. A society where members help each other are more likely to survive then thoses who do not, to a certain level. This has the same princepals as a self sacrifice gene.
Survival of the fittest isn't just at a individual level, it operates at a familial, a societal, and a species spanning level. At the same time, the invididual is no less important. A person who gives everything they own to society isn't particularily feasible, if he does so with no good reason.
Modifié par newcomplex, 19 février 2010 - 10:59 .




Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut




