Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam
And in fact some "morals" that we've adopted today are completely anti-evolutionary: humanitarianism, for one. Humanitarianism is helpful when it allows for sustaining a genetic profile of a certain group of people, but there is no evolutionary reason why we should feel pity for humans who exist outside our sphere of genetic influence. When we sacrifice personal resources to the aid of peoples that are so far removed genetically, we create a situation in which evolution can stagnate. When we sacrifice personal resources to the aid of peoples that are so far removed genetically, we create a situation in which evolution can stagnate.
|
If you see starving children on TV, your "biology" doesn't know that these people are in fact far away on a different continent. We didn't evolve to social situations where we've seen people far away suffer like we might today on the telly. When we saw people suffer, they were close by, and thus we tend to react as if they're part of our "sphere".
Really, I thought that would be obvious.
edit :
Even if biology morals don't serve your selfishness well in today's society doesn't mean they didn't evolve. Environment's changed fast so you should try and put yourself in the "caveman's" shoes before you use examples like this.