English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-31 05:48:26 · 10 answers · asked by smellyfoot ™ 7 in Politics & Government Politics

I'm really not talking about science...

2007-07-31 05:56:46 · update #1

10 answers

It seems so.

2007-07-31 05:54:38 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 1 0

No, but our empathy is part of what makes us the fittest as a species. We're social creatures, who's survival has always depended on eachother- be it nations, tribes, or families. The concept is that what's better for everyone is also better for the individual. The philosopher John Locke called it "Enlightened Self-Interest".

2007-07-31 12:53:10 · answer #2 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2 0

it is one way to make sure you're understood... the fittest have other ways.

what works for one group doesn't work for all. it's best and most flexible to have many tools in our arsenals for use as situations arise. empathy can defuse some scenarios that weaponry never could. on the other hand, there are times when the BIG STICK is the only approach to use.

whether mister obama wants to reach out to the presidents of the axis is entirely up to him. how you and i view it is colored by how successful we think he might BE using this approach. has anyone actually tried it?

i don't think there is any one BEST strategy for survival. but i DO think that having a diverse variety of tools to choose from increases your odds of seeing tomorrow.

2007-07-31 15:27:51 · answer #3 · answered by patzky99 6 · 2 0

In western culture that is true. However that is not true in all cultures. Two examples, the difficulties we in the west have in fighting the war on terror and poverty associated with laziness or addiction. Survival of the fittest is basic human nature. Throughout history we have striven to rise above this. This is good what is bad is not recognizing those who refuse to rise above there own human nature and not defending ourselves against them.

2007-07-31 13:46:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Mankind has surpassed survival of the fittest. I've seen plenty of people who thrive, but really couldn't balance their checkbooks. This is because of empathy so yes, in humans it has, but no where in the rest of the animal kingdom.

2007-07-31 12:53:05 · answer #5 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 1 1

I am making an assumption that you are referring to Affirmative Action and situations applied by that.

2007-07-31 12:55:28 · answer #6 · answered by thebuffettour 2 · 0 0

No empathy has just lead to some very fat and over indulged children who are going to die off long before their time.

2007-07-31 12:52:22 · answer #7 · answered by smedrik 7 · 4 1

Man/woman would have never lived in groups if destruction was the aim.

2007-07-31 13:08:01 · answer #8 · answered by . 5 · 0 0

Who knows... you have to wait a billion years to find out.
.

2007-07-31 12:50:56 · answer #9 · answered by McClintock 4 · 1 1

I hope so.

2007-07-31 12:51:44 · answer #10 · answered by gone 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers