This world is not ours

[whyBish]

1)  What little I know about Game Theory, and I wish I understood it better, is that Morality is an element of various survival strategies undertaken by social animals, of which Man is a subset.

2)  Conflict, not harmony, appears to be THE natural condition.  The evidence is all around you in the physical world. 

3)  All current animal species come from a SINGLE specie at the beginning of the world .
Assumption, not fact.  It is a theory, unproven, although there is a lot of evidence pro, far less convincing evidence (and much rhetoric) con. 

4)  Science shows us that equilibrium, a philosophical cousin to equality, is not a dynamic condition.  Life is inherently dynamic.

Occhi
[right][snapback]76090[/snapback][/right]

1) Yay. a nice meta-moral point of view to give value to the thread! (In my opinion of course :P ) (Is cheerleading morally right? :D )

2) Well, Id charge you of sample bias there, given your occupation... I would say that harmony is the 'natural' condition until there is a shortage of resources, or a 'difference in intended use (e.g. sheep wants to live, but wolf wants a meal). However, I could argue that even this condlict is for harmony (i.e. sheep is protecting self to protect offspring, wolf is 'attacking' sheep to feed offspring). Perhaps my concept of 'harmony' is just different? Even if we talk about things like wars, there is still harmony amongst conflict, the harmony required for each sides organisation.

3) Well, there are some leading theories that even claim that early life on earth started multiple times. Also see S. Kaufmann(sp?) for good origin of life arguements. Evolution is also commonly mistaken to be a slow gradual smooth change, but it usually contains large discontinuities followed by long periods of stability.

4) I don't understand what you mean. I was thinking that you meant to say static instead of dynamic in the first sentence... but I would like some clarification (and the source of this assertion ;) )