I am not talking about survival of the individual more than the survival of the species, though the survival of the individual up to reproduction is nesicary for the survial of the species, after reproduction the survival of the individual is only important to insure the survival of the offspring (and for more chances to reproduce), though humans carry this secondary function further than most other animals (but not to an exceptional degree).
how are non absolute diferences useless, there the only way to make jugements in the real world, relitivly few absolute truths exsist outside of theory (relitive to the non-absolute), I know you being a math person you don't like dealing with things that can be quantifyed but you must acsept there is a clear if not absolute diference between a rock and a human
Just because we can do it does not necessarily mean that it is directly coded in our genes. That is where cultural influence comes in. Here is one: jealousy. This is seen everywhere, and yet it is not exactly "promoting survival." (of the entire society)
it isn't necisary but the fact that a dog can't do math sugests there is a genetic factor
jealousy; a feeling that someone else has something that you should have, and the desire to obtain it or to cause that other idividual to lose posesion of it, often regardless of cost,
baised on primarily on greed, and to a lesser extent the sence of justice (it isn't fair that they have it and I don't)
yes this is an anti-socal instinct, but it is baised on clearly neicary instincts (greed)
jealousy would make a person more likely to be relitivly sucseful than other people ether by driveing them to do beter or by driving them to bring down rivals, wich is how it is still around despite its negitive efects.
however it is detromental to the socal construct wich is central to the survival human race, so it is classifyed as beeing a "bad" thing and socaly looked down apon, becase the socal rules inherant in our instinctive socal structure deem this behavor bad, becase over the melinia those groupes of people that alowed greed to overcome generosity were less succesful that those who didn't
I say that the individual human only starts off with that which will allow for the prolonged survival of that individual only, and since the human has a discrete point where it ceases to survive (death), this actually has some meaning. (for a species, no such point exists)
so would it not have meaning for there to also be instincts that promote a groupe of closly related people, much like the cells in a body all have rules to work together
I have to quit now, be back later
