No I am serious. I think it is rational only if the aim of the human specie is to reproduce itself and if you refer to group logic (in this case the whole human specie group). As I don't share your assumption that 1) to reproduce itself is the conscious/rational aim of any being 2) the subject of this speech should be groups and not individuals, I do not agree.
If I want to reproduce myself (here I choose individual as subject), my better strategy could be cooperation, or also competition. If everybody else cooperate, I could gain a huge advantage by not cooperating (see Gypsies). Plus, if my aim is not reproducing myself but living well, intelligence would not be useful.
You argue out of a totally artificial and sick situation which is in no way representative for biological evolution or human behaviour in general.
In a small group in Europe, especially if the mobile farmer-warrior societies and herder groups, such a behaviour could have lead to success, but the chance was rather low.
Do you know what happened with people who were cowardly, double faced, egoistic and brutal in a group oriented society?
Yes? I could you give some archaeological examples of what people made with such individuals in a healthy society.
Its absurd to state because now the law protects destructive egoism and the society punishes group oriented thinking that this was the case in the past. No!
I give you an example: 1000 people, all group oriented, ready to sacrifice, with a positive composition of traits in the late Neolithic times or BA on the one side, individualistic thinking egoists without the traits I mean on the other...
You think they would have had any success, even the smallest chance?
The mass society allows parasites to exploit and harm the group and the liberals say, "thats their right as long as they dont conflict with the liberal laws...", which are made from an individualistic and plutocratic perspective.
This situation, this society, reversed all what is good into bad and threatens development and the survival of the best parts of the species.
If you dont want to reproduce, ask yourself why. In fact, without contraceptiva and in a natural environment and healthy society you wouldnt even think about it!
Thats the point, you are absolutely caught in the neoliberal scheme, the individualistic way of living at extreme.
You instincts dont work like they should, they make you vulnerable and weak, addicted to surrogats which finally means nothing.
Thats like sugar in a pure form. We dont need it, it is not good for our body, we should eat real fruits, we fool our senses.
But its obvious for what our preferences are made for - for survival and reproductive success.
And finally people which get the real stuff and are used to it, dont want to live like mass humans without any value and addicted to mass pruducts which are just surragats for our real needs.
You instincts say to you what you should do, you just ignore it. But dont think thats freedom, since its no rational decision, nothing you decide at all, its something your brain is filled with from the day of your birth!
Thats life, thats how it works. If there is any god, that are his rules. If there is none, we must to look for the basic rules of life anyway, because otherwise we will fail individually and collectively.
Dont think this society is the best for individuals...look at the rates of various psychoses, depression, suicide rates, abuse of medicaments and drugs, addiction, stress factors, sociophoby etc.
Only if my genes would be seriously damaged and negative, otherwise why do you think so? Is there something more rational than to bring your children through, help your kin, try to keep the track of the species and to save the life on this planet?
No, its not more rational to watch bad movies, drink, speak with stupid friends about nothing and try to make a "career" in a multinational corporation which finally destroys a) your group and in the end probably your career either...
If you think thats a rational way of living, and thats the way the masses live today, you definitely made a mistake because thats garbage and if such people would finally die now or tomorrow wouldnt change too much on the long run if looking back at this awful time.
Unfortunately you dont read German, do you? I had a longer discussion on Skadi with somebody about individual vs. group selection and why the second one is for humans more important on the long run because the individual selection mostly just keeps a minimal standard, the group selection determines the further direction.
Really? Its true for every healthy life form and those who lived (not thought, thinking is unimportant as long as it doesnt help or harm) and still live.
I'm a human myself, believe me I know that ;D
Anyway, as I said, that repertoire of behaviour was made for small group hunter-gatherers, it worked for that time and later cultural evolution worked partly quite good as well.
The human species is a species with an insecure instinct, thats why we develop culture, to bridge and finally outflank this weakness.
Culture has a goal, it has to bring in rules and norms to overcome the instinctive insecurity. Thats a creative process, but like the biological evolution, the cultural evolution can lead to a dead end.
The liberal society is a dead end and has to be reformed or if thats not possible destroyed.
No, I had a long discussion about that, again in German with somebody.
You are wrong.
It depends mostly on the size of the group and the quality of the genes.
If, its only for males good to spread their genes outside the group yes, but the core must be kept pure because its the base for further expansion.
You look at humans like they are now in our society, but I do that AND look at how they were and can be.
Your point of view is totally individualistic, but thats a new cultural phenomenon which has nothing to do with reality. In fact liberalism is in many parts pseudoreligious.
Its not by chance that Calvinists produced the most individualistic society.
Calvinists and liberal Jews dont thought in the classic European way, that was the problem since their view was on the long run just poison.
Read Max Weber first...
Such a way of individualistic thinking is foreign to every natural society in and outside of Europe. Its a artificial product of people which wanted to maximize their personal freedom and profit at ANY cost, even versus the opinion of the vast majority of the people.
Such a view was only successful because of its use of human weaknesses and its mass production of surrogats and cheap dreams.
Otherwise the masses would never have followed...not even with force, they were just corrupted.
[/quote]