Of questionable veracity is the claim that there are unicellular organisms, brainless as it were, that are phototropic phototactic.

:ok: I having nothing more to say.

I have doubts regarding what I'm about to say but according to some sources, physics is well on its way to becoming a branch of mathematics. The relationship isn't a one-sided love affair though , each contributes to the other in signifcant ways I was told.

This seems inevitable as physics relies heavily on math - not just as a tool but also as an idea bank from which it borrows models (mathematical ones) to provide a framework for its theories/hypotheses. With such a strong bond between the two, magic is inevitable.

Coming to bad physics, there isn't too much of that around - the world of science is rather harsh to ideas/theories/hypotheses that lack rigor, especially of the mathematical kind. All one has to do to realize this fact is to release a hypotheses of poor quality into the wilderness of science; it won't last very long out in the open.

Bad physics on the forum, this forum, is not an issue for me. It's fun to see someone get it wrong, assuming real physicists got it right, and by joining in make it even more wrong. :joke:

I bounced this off one of my favorite philosophers, and he directed me to 2d semantics, where I quickly got lost. — RogueAI

I don't know what you said there but if you're interested I'd like to chime in.

First off, water is an older concept than H2O. Those who first encountered water most certainly didn't have knowledge of chemistry and so wouldn't have understood water in terms of Hydrogen and Oxygen (H2O).

Thus, I surmise, correctly I suppose, that water was defined in terms of its physical properties - transparent, liquid, odorless, tasteless, good for washing, bathing, drinking, putting out fires, cooling the body, and so on.

Imagine now an alien world, another planet, inhabited by aliens and there's a substance on that planet that fits the description I gave above of water. Call this substance retaw. What retaw is to these aliens is water to us, in terms of its physical properties that is.

However, when we do a chemical analysis of retaw, we discover that it's CH4 and we know water is H2O. Basically, water isn't always H2O. Alien retaw is water to us and our water is alien retaw; they both have a similar function in, essentially, being the basis for life as we know it and ss the aliens know it but they're chemically distinct species.

I see what you mean now. There are multiple ways to resolve this though.

1- First off, the AN doesn't claim that all is not well necessarily. But that there is a chance that all won't be well. So based on that, don't take the chance.

2- The AN can simply claim that all will not be well for their child while all is well for them

Among others. But most importantly: No AN on this site has tried to reach AN through the angle that life is terrible and unbearable. Because that's not true on average. Most arguments are about risk management and how the risk of all not being well need not be taken. — khaled

The future is unpredictable, like the weather I suppose - bright and sunny one moment, overcast and pouring the next. Nevertheless, there's a noticeable trend, even if only in certain patches of the global community, in the human condition in that the overall situation vis-à-vis happiness has shown some definite improvement. All we need to do now is to maintain the momentum so to speak and the future will probably be a better place than now/the past. That's looking at the bright side though, full of optimism and hope.



Here's another version of my argument which takes into account the fact the existence of abject misery - poverty, chronic illnesses, death, and the rest of the stuff about life that make it an unbearabale ordeal/agony.

As I said, antinatalists, given that they've developed a philosophy (antinatalism), have to counted among the fortunate - even if antinatalists experience suffering they still have an overall comfortable existence as evidenced by how they were able to "think in peace" and work on their belief.

Antinatalists, when they speak of how, to borrow a line from Buddhism, "life is suffering" are not talking about themselves for, as I said, they aren't suffering. What they're actually doing is drawing our attention to the section of the human population who live in appalling conditions, those whose lives are a constant struggle, those who don't know what fun means, and so on. Let's call such people les misérables

Here's the million dollar question aimed at antintalists: can't the les misérables work their way up the social ladder and themselves become antinatalists? Surely they can, les misérables are humans, endowed with the same capabilities, as antinatalists. If so, the antinatlist position is untenable; after all les misérables can achieve the same level of happiness that allows antinatalists to cogitate about them.

Even that one.

In other words, you're speaking nonsense. Your thoughts are self contradictory. Should be a pointer that “if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right” is not right to begin with. — khaled

What's self-contradictory about it? That there are philosophies, all and sundry, implies that the suffering extant in the world ain't so terrible that people can't think. This gibes quite well with the fact that much of the thinking going on in the world takes place in so-called first-world countries where suffering, at least those in the form of diseases, seems to be ebbing away. Contrast this to other less fortunate regions of the world. A grain of sodium chloride might come in handy nevertheless.

That antinatalism exists implies that people aren't suffering to the extent that they can't apply their brains which they have to to think of antinatalism. Ergo, antinatalism is a catch-22 situation - the antinatalist claims all is not well but to do that all has to be well.

1. I think [premise]
2. If I think then, I am (I exist) [suppressed premise]
Therefore,
3. I am (I exist)

Time to send an invitation to Agrippa of Agrippa's trilemma fame aka Münchhausen trilemma and ask him to take a look at Descartes' supposedly airtight argument.

What's the proof for premise 1? seems to be the best route to bring Agrippa's trilemma to bear down, quite heavily I'm afraid, on Descartes' admirable attempt. The proof, if it even deserves that label, is as follows:

1. I think
So,
1. I think

Hopelessly and devastatingly circular. No proposition can justify itself or, more accurately, should be allowed to execute that maneuver. Would you believe me if I e.g. told you, "God exists" and justified that with "God exists"?

That said, all is not lost, there's still a glimmer of hope for Descartes if one is of the opinion that there are such things as virtuous circularities. Indeed, if I think then, surely and indubitably, I think.

Intriguingly, the very process of trying to come up with a proof for premise 1. I think, is itself, thinking. This might be one of those rare occasions where the attempt to prove something, here 1. I think, is itself sufficient the proof of that thing. I'm sure many would give their eye teeth for a deal like that. Even more interesting is the other side of this coin - trying to disprove premise 1. I think, itself being thinking, has the opposite effect i.e. it proves premise 1. I think.

I was hoping Agrippa's trilemma to seriously damage the credibility of premise 1. I think. It doesn't look like that's possible.

However, premise 2. If I think then, I am (I exist) is a sitting duck for Agrippa's trilemma. It lacks the self-justifying feature of premise 1. I think. That being so, Agrippa's trilemma applies in full to it and there no prizes for guessing what happens next.

“if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right”

What? How does that follow? And how does it not apply to every position ever? — khaled

It applies to every position of course. :chin:

Many people doesn´t have a slightest idea what suffering can be, good for them. — Antinatalist

:rofl:

Would you like a similar fate to William Wallace (c. 1207 - 1305)? Hanged, drawn, and quartered?

The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge, to serve as a warning of the fate of traitors. — Wikipedia

Perhaps that might not be to your taste, you might prefer something else, Crucifixion?

Can you not suffer and think of an argument? — schopenhauer1

No, unfortunately not. Ever heard of a woman in labor coming up with a bright idea? Plus, what's the idea of taking leave from work when one falls ill?

Here's a something you might want to consider. It looks like a paradox but I'll leave that for you to suss out.

First things first, I don't claim to know all that much about suffering but from my own experiences of how bad life can treat you I've discovered, to my great disappointment, that when one is miserable, it's impossible to think let alone think well (rationally). The mind/brain is overwhelmed by the urgent call for relief (from suffering) that it can think of nothing else. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates what I'm driving at quite well. In the face of this viral event which I liken to suffering, all governments of the world seem to be hyperfocused on how to alleviate/eliminate the devastation the pandemic is causing.

To get to the point, antinatalism is a rational standpoint - arrived at via research, study, discussion, and argumentation. What I want bring to your attention is that antinatalism, because it requires extensive rational analysis, implies that the brains/minds that hit upon the idea were, note, not suffering; had they been suffering they wouldn't have been able to think at all. I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right.

Whether something is hard or easy is relative, its relative in the sense that whether or not its hard or easy depends on whose doing it. — HardWorker

I could be wrong but that's not how relativity is to be understood. Difficulty level (hard/easy) is relative if a given problem is easy compared to another problem but hard in relation to yet another (for the same person). It's not about who's doing it. If it were, a better but not the best way to describe it would be that difficulty (hard/easy) is subjective.

It comes from Franz Brentano, who was one of Husserl's professors and a key source for later phenomenology. 'In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents.' It develops from there into a major topic in phenomenology and philosophy generally. — Wayfarer

Sorry to bother you but you seem to be the go-to-person here. So, here goes...

Aboutness, the way I understood it, seems to be the fact the the mind can "hold" stuff - other things, including itself - in it (mental contents). It, the mind, can, in the simplest sense, think on/of, make a subject of, whathaveyou. What must be noted however is that aboutness is only that as described above - there's nothing in aboutness vis-à-vis mind apart from the fact that the mind can make a subject of, can think on/of, other things, itself too.

If so, what about photography? A camera - the processes involved in image formation inside it - can also be about something, usually things other than the camera itself. Just as the mind can think of something, a camera can take a picture of something. Are we to conclude that the camera and the mind - both capable of being about something - are one and the same thing? If no, why? If yes, then cameras are minds!

This is a difficult topic for me and internet sources I referred to are either too superficial or too deep. Ergo, kindly cut me some slack for my errors if any.

Racism, I think, can be justified IFF (A) the concept of "race" is factually warranted in biology, (B) comparative "superiority" of one "race" over another "race" or over all other "races" is measured with the consensus of all "races" involved on the results (like the final scores of a football game), and (C) the ideology of "racial supremacy" – that the right (or license), independent of whether or not members have the "might" to do so, of any "race" to exploit (enslave) and dominate (scapegoat) any other "race" – is soundly demonstrated to be true.

If (A) is not true,
then (B & C) necessarily fail.
(A) is demonstrably false;
therefore, "racism" is maniifestly unjustified. QED. — 180 Proof

:ok:

Race according to Wikipedia is a phenotype-based concept - a system of categorization of our species (homo sapiens) premised on differences in (external) physical features.

That out of the way, one particular side to racism that seems germane to the issue is that of racial purity by which I refer to the racist ideal of promoting/maintaing what in many circles is known as a bloodline but this boils down to our all-time-favorite activity, sex/coitus. The problem is that, as you rightly pointed out, if, I quote, "the concept of 'race' is factually warranted in biology" interracial sex should be impossible or if possible should result in genetic dead ends like ligers and tigons. In short, that the bloodlines of a race can be "corrupted" or "tainted" by simply going to bed with a member of another race makes racism untenable; after all, if race were really about purity of a stock then why can it be made "impure" with such ease? The biology of so-called races doesn't support, in fact it opposes, racism.

Please note, I'm still not as confident of my conclusion as I'd like to be.

Fuck racists! I mean that literally of course.

why exactly virtual murder was acceptable but virtual pedophilia — Xanatos

For my money, the notion of virtual murder is not as cut-and-dried as it needs to be for the dilemma to be meaningfully problematic - all dilemmas are problems with no obvious or easy answers. What I'm especially concerned about is how the use of the word "murder" in virtual murder immediately gives one the impression that virtual "murder" is wrong, it has to be wrong for if not there's no dilemma. However, virtual murder, as happens in shooter video games, is invariably morally ambiguous i.e. though missions/levels in shooter games involve killing people, the story arc is such that the player, the protagonist doing the killing, is the "good" guy. In other words, though "murder", the better word would be "killing", takes place in shooter video games, the player is given mixed signals as to the moral nature of the killings - is it good? is it bad? both? - and thus people are willing to assume the roles of virtual characters that have to kill and commit other apparently illegal acts but for the greater good or something like that.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, isn't amenable to such (moral) manipulation - it's hard if not impossible to give a positive spin to it. People will reject virtual pedophilia for this reason.

To make the long story short, there's no dilemma. Morgan Luck assumes that virtual murder and virtual pedophilia are both equally bad and that if gamers have no issues with virtual "murder", they should have no problem being virtual pedophiles. Not so!

Excellent question. If intolereance, herein an euphemism for racism, is transmitted like a disease through one's genes then it makes sense that about two years ago a question/thread on the forum, "is racism justified?" was left unanswered and the answers offered were far from satisfactory. The question, "is racism justified?" makes, as per what's implied by the OP, an unjustified assumption viz. racism is a reasoned position, that people consider the issue of other races rationally. Inherited i.e. genetically handed down racist traits would render the question, "is racism justified?" moot.

More worrying is the issue of how this makes disabusing racists of their supremacist ideas is a lost cause for if a belief, here racism, isn't based on logical argumentation, attempting a refutation or counter-argument is pointless.

@180 Proof, I'd like you to chime in.

:ok: Just a random thought of mine. I suppose it's facile enough to be dismissed from the outset.

But how does this address the antinatalist scenario, given that you posted the story in reply to the OP question? — baker

Well, anitnatalists mean well - they don't want to see people suffer. The girl in the story means well too - she doesn't want the persona non grata to suffer. Like it or not, that so many great minds, with a few exceptions of course, have been preoccupied by suffering says a lot about the way the world really is. Such exceptionally talented thinkers would've been better employed and would've gotten better results doing something else e.g. trying to formuate a theory of everything. I have nothing more to say.

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

I remember reading a story once about this person, a girl I'm not sure, who's planning a party. She makes a list of her friends and other people she wants to invite. It so happens that she knows someone, someone who she wants to invite, but soon realizes that that just won't work out - this person, for better or worse, doesn't get along with the other people already on the invite list. There's simply no way that this person will have fun at the party - outnumbered and disliked at the same time. She decides not to invite this person for the better.

I would say no because then we can assume "non movement" trough space as stopping (or slowing down) the time which isn't the cause.

A question may arise, what about inanimate nature? it is subject to time as well. — SpaceDweller

Imagine yourself deer hunting with a compound bow. You see a deer but you realize it's not in range. You, as quietly as possible, close in on the hapless deer. It's now inside your bow's kill zone. What goes on inside your head? Do you tell yourself, "this is the right moment to release my arrow"? or do you think, "this is the right distance for a killshot"? Could a disinterested observer figure out which of the two thoughts mentioned above determined your actions? If yes, how? If no, I rest my case. Sorry for repeating myself but I needed to clarify things to myself and to you too.

I'm not really sure. Some people are inquisitive or skeptical and they imagine possible explanations for the existence of our world. — Andrew F

That's a bummer! Sorry!

Which leads us to the conclusion that time could be an illusion. We have this notion, we've given it a name - time - but what we're actually tracking is change.

This just popped into my head: I always believed that animals, specifically predators - big cats especially - had a sense of time which if it isn't chronos is definitely kairos for they have to, as I initially assumed, know when to begin their chase for the selected prey animal. This, however, could be an illusion because there's the possibility that the chase begins not in a temporal context wherein the lion/tiger, in its mind, comes to the conclusion that "yes, this is the right moment to begin my chase" but what actually goes on in the lion's/tiger's mind is a spatial calculation as in "this is the optimum distance for a successful chase". The two - temporal vs spatial reasoning vis-à-vis hunting - appear to be indistinguishable. The question that naturally arises is, can this be true of us too? In the simplest sense, could time be space? :chin:

Are you saying something like, "you don't know what you don't know?" Meaning, you can never know how much more knowledge potentially lies beyond your current understanding, and so you could always doubt whether, using your example, you are truly awakened? — Andrew F

No! My question to you is this, why (give reasons) did the possibility of reality being an illusion arise in the first place?

Why do I ask? If that reason persists, is a part of what we believe is the genuine thing, authentic reality then, we're back to square one, not having made an inch of progress.

I think what you describe is one possibility, but the one does not necessarily follow from the other. It is possible that both our reality and the more fundamental reality are the same in many ways, but it is also possible that they are not. We can only imagine them as the same because it is impossible to imagine anything beyond the limits of our understanding. That is the only reason the examples we come up with are so grounded in our own reality. However, the real source of the problem is in the fact that we have no way to "look behind the curtain" so to speak and see whether our reality is independent or dependent on another reality. — Andrew F

My bad, I wasn't clear enough. Even if one, somehow, experienced what in Eastern religions is referred to as an Awakening, one would never really be certain that one has...awakened for the exact same issue we had regarding the authenticity of what we left behind, awakened from, would persist even in what we now believe, after having allegedly "awakened", is the real deal, true reality. Why do you think this is so? Any ideas?

Except those in reality could turn off our illusion at any time. :grimace: — Down The Rabbit Hole

I never said that we couldn't have an illusion within an illusion à la The Truman Show. Jim Carrey's acting was superb.

Forgiveness is for those who ask for it and who genuinely want it, no? — Xanatos

Indeed! But here's something to think about. Take Christianity, a religion, in which Divine Mercy figures prominently in the relationship between sinner and the Almighty. Yet, Christianity has, to my knowledge, a list of unforgivable sins. Go figure!

Even that is too cognitive. — James Riley

I totally understand it. — James Riley

The irony!

Okay, we did justice for you, now quit stewing and get back to work. — James Riley

:rofl:

The state wants peace and really only cares about us to the extent it can keep the peace and get everyone back in the saddle — James Riley

:ok: :up: I suspected as much but it's comforting to know there are others who think the same way.

Forgiveness comes with time, and an understanding that it can prevent us from being victimized twice — James Riley

You mean forgive but don't forget?

Mercy is for the objective person — James Riley

Is there any other acceptable state of mind?

Look, I'm just confused (as you are it seems) about judicial killings. Here's something to ponder upon: I've been told that Scandinavian countries have very low crime rates and this includes crimes that carry mandatory death sentences in other regions; plus, Scandinavia scores high on the happiness index. This surely speaks volumes on the rationale, stated/proposed, for capital punishment. It seems there's a very important lesson to learn from our Scandinavian brothers and sisters - a peaceful society with acceptable crime rates is possible without resorting to extreme forms of punishment such as executions, and that's our window of opportunity to distance ourselves from the controversy-mired modes of justice (the death penalty). Why would anyone want a problematic method of doing things when what's desired can be had without it?

That's looking at one aspect life when there are infinite ways of seeing it — Gregory

Of course, perspectives - many - are available but you were asking whether biology could be reduced to physics/chemistry and it can be. That's the point, no?

Some of us aren't that appalled by it — James Riley

Sad but true. It's quite possible that I don't fully grasp the issue though. I mean I have some idea of people demanding an eye for an eye justice - the hurt from a wrong refuses to go away unless blood is shed - but then...what of the notions of forgiveness and mercy?

My point is very simple. If we explain a flower with biology terms and understandings, we use concepts that are scientific and much closer to reality than if we explain the flower with quantum physics — Gregory

That's what you think but, like it or not, we can tell the story of a flower or anything else for that matter in terms of the physics of something. I recall listening to a lecture once in which the speaker reduces all life to a particular chemical property (I forget which) of water.

I know. No idea about the latter part. — Tom Storm

:ok:

I get that and understand what you say. But none of it suggests that human beings do not have altruism. It simply suggest that some struggle to manifest altruism given economic systems and power. — Tom Storm

I'm not saying there's no altruism. I'm just contemplating the possibility that it, as a trait, maybe on its way out from the gene pool. To confirm/disconfirm this, we'd need to keep track of altruists - their numbers and their well-being - and look for trends. If the population of altruists are declining then it suggests evolutionary pressure that's working against altruists and if the population graph of altruists is pointing to the top-right of the page, then altruism proves itself as a trait that "...has huge survival advantages..."

Different arguments have been made support of punishment generally: Specific and General Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Retribution (eye for an eye), and Restitution. The death penalty is not applicable to some of those, obviously, but the others still provide a reed to lean on for some folks. In the end, though, I think they could all be satisfied through life without parole. — James Riley

I still can't get past the obvious inconsistency therein. If you feel appalled by someone's hand getting chopped off for having done the same thing to another person, you should be equally, if not more, disturbed by executions for the crime of murder.

I am not saying that consciousness is primary in this regard or that earth is special. I'm questioning if biology can be reduced chemistry and chemistry to physics — Gregory

A question that's been bothering many great minds for centuries I presume. All I can say is biology is chemistry (organic chemistry) and this has been true since quite some time I believe. However, there definitely are huge gaps in our understanding. The situation, to my knowledge, is like someone who knows what a CPU is, what a RAM is, what a hard disk is, what a mouse is, what a keyboard is but is unable to figure out how to build a functional PC.

I agree. Now, how best to get the state to stop? Trying to make it work, where, when successful, it gets to say "see, it works!" Or proving it failed, by it's own standards, and has killed the innocent?

I can understand the desire to get after a case of an innocent guy on death row, especially if you are the guy, or his loved ones, or you have great empathy. But, from an objective view of 10k feet, I think people should dump a metric shit ton of time, money and resources into showing the state to be a killer of innocent people. — James Riley

What I don't understand is this: In the modern world, the ancient form of justice, an eye for an eye is viewed as barbaric and, more to the point, a miscarriage of justice and yet, capital punishment, which is just that - an eye for an eye - has many strong supporters. This kind of cognitive dissonance is going to do great harm if not tackled soon and with a "vengeance".

Too much Herbert Spencer in that "competitors" slip-of-the-mind. On average individuals in groups survive much better against natural hazards like famines, droughts, wildfires, caring for the young and elderly, gathering fuel and food, tending the sick, developing language, building free-standing shelters, hunting, watching for signs of known dangers, and on and on ... than an individual alone. It's not a matter of guarding against "weakness", Fool, but a matter of existential vulnerabilities & exigencies usually before there are threats from "competitors". I suppose you've spent little-to-no time in the wilderness or backcountry or at sea, and so haven't taken the opportunity to careful consider the radical difference of being out there by oneself versus with companions? :shade: — 180 Proof

You lead, I'll follow.

This has nothing to do with "altruism." It has to do with fellow-feeling, community, common values. We're human. We more or less, most of the time like each other. We wish each other well. We share a sense of common purpose with other people.

Also, looking for a specific evolutionary purpose for every detail of every aspect of human behavior is silly and pointless. That's sociobiology and it's wrong-headed. — T Clark

This is what Wittgenstein aptly described as being bewitched by language. Altruism is the concern for the welfare of others and covers, includes, what you call "fellow-feeling", "community", "common values". These are either the basis for or the consequences of altruism.

According to the web, In the US, about 20% of hospitals are for-profit. — T Clark

Is that why doctors in America are so rich? Gimme a break!

Questions are like molds. We make them (molds/questions) and we fill 'em up (with molten metal/answers) The casting is only as good as the mold, the answer is only as good as the question. Each type of question corresponds to a particular mold and the answers are the castings that can be made with given molds. As is obvious to you at this point, the castings/answers are limited by the questions/molds - there's not much the molten metal can do but assume the shape of the mold, the answer is, even if valuable, restricted, severely so, by the question. To make the long story short, if we're to feel a sense of accomplishment as a metal caster, we need to produce high quality molds i.e. questions are what matter, not the answers.

I've always failed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people stillfail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"? Since we're an eusocial species, as corollary what's implied is survival of the fittest eusociety – N O T survival of the most Spencerian, laissez-faire, amoral circus clowns. With this proper focus, altruism & cooperation are readily explained (shown to be) as indispensable as they're ineluctable as adaptive survival strategies for eusocial species like primates, cetaceans, elephants, etc. 'Discarding the weak' or normalizing 'toxic masculinity' are maladaptive, especially for human groups in the absence of natural adaptive pressures for so many millennia. — 180 Proof

My hunch is banding together, social living to be precise, altruism therefore, is the expected response of the weak against stronger competitors. There's strength in numbers and that the dominant species on the planet is homo sapiens proves the point. Forming groups is such a powerful means of survival that evolution over countless generations seems to have selected for individuals that put the group before the self - incipient altruism. This first step laid the foundation for altruism as we know it which I suspect will mature over time into something else, something hopefully much better.

I didn't say society was perfect - hierarchies and power are seperate matters. Nevertheless I would suggest that many of those in the top 1% do have empathy for others and also generously support philanthropic causes. Where would hospitals and charities be without philanthropy? There's a long history of the wealthy sharing resources with the poor. As for the bottom 90%; many can and do work together and pool resources for a common good. It helps them to survive. There's also self-interested altruism and reciprocal altruism - useful survival approaches. — Tom Storm

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's not that I'm aiming for some perfect ideal state where everybody is altruistic - you seem to have missed the part in my post where I suggested that a small number of altruists could see the entire human race through thick and thin but then the fact is even this seems too optimistic an assessement of the current situation. Thus my dissatisfaction.

Also, I have doubts as to the aunthenticity of your claims. For instance, lamentably but not surprisingly, hospitals in general are for-profit organizations. I'll leave it at that.

Is it a gross error? It's clear empathy and altruism is a strong force on the planet and the marked contrast between this and selfishness is the story of the human race. Will time and changing behaviours remove altruism from humans? Who can say? — Tom Storm

I wish I had more to say. You seem to be on the right track though.

Naturalistic fallacy — Banno

N/A. The theory of evolution has an overarching principle all life has to conform to - it' a law which basically states that survival is the name of the game. Given this, everything that living organisms do must, one way or another, go towards ensuring survival. Now explain altruism which, in certain respects, is giving the advntage to one's competitor.