Dawkins to arrest Pope

Originally posted by whodey
But why are those who show greater levels of sympathy accepted more in social circles? It seems to me that if we ally ourselves just for the means of survival we would do so with people who are strong and manipulative.

But why are those who show greater levels of sympathy accepted more in social circles?

Because they are social and they enable others to survive.

It seems to me that if we ally ourselves just for the means of survival we would do so with people who are strong and manipulative.

Some do!! There are periods in time where these types of people have MANY people aligned with them and they do succeed! Have you heard of Adolf Hitler??? Of course, he didn't end up too pretty, but he got pretty far and had people who were willing to die for him right up to the end.

You think this is just a hard and fast 100% rule?! Life isn't like that. Over the long term people survive because they can help one another. Individually humans are one of the weakest creatures on earth. It's only collectively that we survive and that's why over the long term those who benefit the society as a whole end up surviving longer.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
But why are those who show greater levels of sympathy accepted more in social circles?

Because they are social and they enable others to survive.

It seems to me that if we ally ourselves just for the means of survival we would do so with people who are strong and manipulative.

Some do!! There are periods in time where these types ...[text shortened]... t's why over the long term those who benefit the society as a whole end up surviving longer.

Nope. The botttom line is that we still identify doing unto others as you would have them do to you are superior to simply using people. Both can be used as a means for survival, yet, one is superior to us innately.

Originally posted by whodey
Nope. The botttom line is that we still identify doing unto others as you would have them do to you are superior to simply using people. Both can be used as a means for survival, yet, one is superior to us innately.

Aaaah.. just nope. No argument.. just nope. Just like faith - no logical argument necessary, just blindness.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Aaaah.. just nope. No argument.. just nope. Just like faith - no logical argument necessary, just blindness.

Blindness is not acknowledging that the vital need that each man and woman has is for love. In fact, babies who are given food and attended to in regards to their basic physiologic needs but shown no love have been shown to actually die. Love is not a tool for our existence, it is our existence. It is a force that is actually more real than our material world. To not see that love is the driving force within each human soul is blindness. It is what gives our lives meaning, not an evolutionary tool for survival. In fact, I would surrender my life for the ones I love and would do so for those who may not ever be of any "use" to me in the future. Why? Is my evolutionary survival instinct amiss? Is yours?

Originally posted by whodey
Blindness is not acknowledging that the vital need that each man and woman has is for love. In fact, babies who are given food and attended to in regards to their basic physiologic needs but shown no love have been shown to actually die. Love is not a tool for our existence, it is our existence. It is a force that is actually more real than our material wo ...[text shortened]... f any "use" to me in the future. Why? Is my evolutionary survival instinct amiss? Is yours?

No, your evolutionary survival instinct isn't amiss and there are reasons why the idea of self-sacrifice actually does improve the survival - not of you, but of your genes. Because you are more likely to share your genes with the ones you love!

This instinct is also not unique to man. There are other animals that also display that behavior.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
No, your evolutionary survival instinct isn't amiss and there are reasons why the idea of self-sacrifice actually does improve the survival - not of you, but of your genes. Because you are more likely to share your genes with the ones you love!

This instinct is also not unique to man. There are other animals that also display that behavior.

Well you assume that my loved ones are from my gene pool. So are we to assume that those who lay down their lives for those not in their gene pool have their evolutionary compuss askew?

Originally posted by whodey
Well you assume that my loved ones are from my gene pool. So are we to assume that those who lay down their lives for those not in their gene pool have their evolutionary compuss askew?

I assume you have both.

You are not to assume that at all. People (and the other animals that exhibit this behavior) are more likely to sacrifice themselves for those within their group whether direct family or not.

Remember, within your group you still are more likely to share genetic traits - even though that isn't a direct part of the decision to make the sacrifice.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I assume you have both.

You are not to assume that at all. People (and the other animals that exhibit this behavior) are more likely to sacrifice themselves for those within their group whether direct family or not.

Remember, within your group you still are more likely to share genetic traits - even though that isn't a direct part of the decision to make the sacrifice.

How about laying down your life for those who are your enemies?

Originally posted by whodey
How about laying down your life for those who are your enemies?

How about it?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
How about it?

Does laying ones life down for their supposide enemies make any kind of evolutionary sense?

Originally posted by whodey
Nope. The botttom line is that we still identify doing unto others as you would have them do to you are superior to simply using people. Both can be used as a means for survival, yet, one is superior to us innately.

Simply using people is almost certainly superior innately. It is also prevalent. In evolutionary language one imagines the whole point is to reproduce with the most attractive of the other sex. Everyone knows the pretty girls do not go out with the clever boys. The clever boys never ask and the pretty girls are not prepared to wait.

We have evolved to the point where we no longer only act innately. We are conscious, we are aware, we think, we have aesthetics.

It is debatable if this is superior for purposes of evolution. There are many indications that this stage of evolution is heading for disaster. The planet will survive global warming and life will survive it. Just not human life.

Originally posted by finnegan
Simply using people is almost certainly superior innately. It is also prevalent. In evolutionary language one imagines the whole point is to reproduce with the most attractive of the other sex. Everyone knows the pretty girls do not go out with the clever boys. The clever boys never ask and the pretty girls are not prepared to wait.

We have evolved to ...[text shortened]... disaster. The planet will survive global warming and life will survive it. Just not human life.

I see. So we have gone from laying down ones life is a result of wanting to preserve their genes to wanting to save a group of people who may have their genes to going past genetic imput altogether via an intellectual stage of evolution which may destroy us all?

You are all daft, you do realize this don't you? 😛

Originally posted by finnegan
Everyone knows the pretty girls do not go out with the clever boys. The clever boys never ask and the pretty girls are not prepared to wait.

Are you calling my bird ugly? Or are you calling me thick?

Originally posted by whodey
Does laying ones life down for their supposide enemies make any kind of evolutionary sense?

Not necessarily, from what I know it's also not a very prevalent behavior.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Not necessarily, from what I know it's also not a very prevalent behavior.

But how would you explain it? Christ did it. His disciples did it. The early Christian church was known for it. Would you not say that this is admirable behavoir or were they all crazy?