A Message from a Guildie

As I said, the two are different scenarios. You can't just cram them together and try force-solving them the same way.

It's really the same thing. I suppose what you're really trying to rely on is the fact that humans are a lot smarter than dogs.

Hypothetically speaking, yes that does make sense. However, since you keep saying that humans are social animals, perhaps there is more survival value keeping BOTH me and you alive. However, if forced into a situation in which one MUST die, I'd say save yourself or I'll probably save myself and leave you for dead.

God doesn't play dice, and neither will I. There has to be a justification for why others should live in a hardcore survival situation.

And quite frankly, social animals we fail as, if there's only three of us. Especially if we're all males or females.

Obviously, if you're talking about loved ones, that's a different matter. We're talking about strangers, people you're fighting for but don't know about. And obviously if you don't know the people you're fighting for, you don't love them. How do you love someone that you don't know? That point has never made sense to me.

You seem to be oblivious to incredibly strong feelings. Love is just the tip of the iceberg. Ever wonder what it feels like to be suicidal? You'll get a taste of motivation there; motivation that's stronger than survival instinct. Or how about if you have high degree tantrum RAGE?

This is something you can only truly understand once you experience it.

Communism and socialism do not work well, because what ends up happening is that the government acts as a giant leech that saps people of their property. Peaceful example: people negotiate with each other to come to an agreement, in which case, nobody gets hurt and the issues are addressed.

Hello? Are we on the same page here? Of course those governments leech people of their property, that's part of what communism and socialism are. We're talking about how society trumps individuals, not the other way around.

Fitness, the survival of an individual organism and it's offspring, should be prioritized, the society comes second. After all, would your society back you up? I would highly doubt it.

Usually society wouldn't back you up if society's people had no obligations to anything (including laws). Other than that, reality contradicts your views. Not saying survival of the fittest is obsolete, but that society plays an even bigger role that you'd imagine... or want.

Governments send their troops into wars as pawns. Do they care if you die? To some extent, if they lose a high amount of people, However, should a casualty occurs, it's merely a mishap and you'll just become another statistic. Your government does NOTHING (except maybe send your wife and children cards but that's all).

Also, why should it be limited to societies? A person is a person, is a person. People are killing each other. Other people care about you? Nope. So why should you care about them.

If the government has to pay hefty wages to have soldiers, they'd better care if you die or not. I'd like to introduce something called army moral. Someone dies in your squad, you'll see the chain reaction of negative emotions, starting with the people who were friends with the dead person (or at least have relations in some way).

Also, I'm not sure if you were expecting this, but you just further explored why society wins and individuals don't. Long live big government and grandiose schemes!