Then your original question is flawed. Just because self preservation is looked upon as bad by our current society, does not make it a clear cut good or bad. Because at the simplest levels we are all animals and survival of the fittest rules the mind when there are no lines or teachings to deading the natrual instincts.
evolution would favor groups than can help each other a little. people do automatically care about each other. they dont automatically get all the complicated rules we have in place to keep things running smoothly, but to some extent they feel empathy towards each other. probably women more than men, because they bear the main responsibility of raising kids. so it is probably a valuable evolutionary device to be emotionally involved . ....aww dang i have to cut it here i gots business to attend to.
Well, it's definitely over-simplified. Having people operating under "self preservation" is not ideal for a functional society. Not just our society, but any society that hopes to achieve harmony amongst all its members. That makes it a bad thing, IMO - atleast in terms of a functioning society. It does serve other purposes, for instance if you were to be stranded on an island those instincts would probably be very important. But for most practical purposes, society trains children to ignore these instincts.
Yes, and obviously man-kind is capable of it and has created a society that supports that. I sort of agree. I'm not sure to what extent though. On one level I see that children care about others, but at the same time I see that they often show no regard for that.
You are right about it not being ideal for a functional society, but at age 3how much impact on society is there? If the child is not taught to turn off the instincts then in adulthood that would be bad. BUT that would be society corrupting the child by not giving it the tools it needs to be a valued part of society. But if natural instincts do serve a purpose, than how can they be bad?
None, but only because society eventually teaches them otherwise. Right, and society teaches them to turn them off. Hmmm... I dunno. Can not teaching someone something be considered corrupting them? For they were already that way, so who's really to blame? Society for not teaching them otherwise, or themself (God, evolution or whatever) for not already having that knowledge? Because the purpose they serve is no longer a daily occurrence. They are simply out-dated.
Yeah its called neglect. If what is being taught is the rules of life. Well society changes faster than evolution, so you cant blame that. I dont want to turn this into a religious thing, but if God, some other powerful being, or hell even aliens are smart enough to create life then they would surely realize that society is always changing. SO to provided a new born with the knowledge of rule, that very well could change due to poltical unrest, family moving to a new country, or even just ****ty parents would put it at a disadvantage from day 1. You are right they are out dated, but everything around us could be gone at the snap of a finger, our society could crumble down around our feet. Whatever supreme being you believe in gives us at birth the basics to survive, because instincts can not be taught. It is up society to mold that child and the measures that society uses to influance the child is weither they turn out to be bad or good.
