The consequences of a thought proven to be 100% true

Let’s keep this convo free-flowing since it’s going to be mainly a thought exercise.

Let’s discuss for a moment that we somehow discovered a breakthrough in physics and we are able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe was created by something which doesn’t involve a creator.
It proves that we are here by chance, randomly.
We are simply “survival of the fittest”

You guys can talk about your hypothetical scenarios too on how the world might implode , mainly religions.

Here’s my beginning question, I might have others later.

Why should we care about the sick anymore? They’re just a bad config. From a survival point of view they’re just wasting our money and resources.

That is an excellent question!!!

It is absolutelu true that Natural Selection selects those who are individually able to survive, but it isn’t quite as simple as that.

First; In nature, many species a have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with other species to the point where both depend on the other for survival. The honeybee is a perfect example. It depends on flowering plants for survival , but their pollination of flowering plants in turn feeds about 75 % of herbivores on earth. Pretty neat !
Second : Humans could not survive without their symbiotic bacterial microbiome. Bacteria keep us alive!
Third; There are several higher species that carry their wounded as long as they do not become a real detriment of group survival.

Nature produces sufficient resources to support an enormous variety of species, including some that are vulnerable but have found a small niche that keeps them alive.

The Silvery Salamander should have been extinct a long time ago, yet it survives.

Thank you.
I like your third answer and would like to know more. I have seen a documentary where my favorite guy David Attenborough was narrating, where a group of elephants were pondering on the skulls of another dead elephant, I have also seen a video of robin Williams talking to a gorrila who learned sign language and gorrila expressed sadness at the notion of death (I found that profound).

But these (including your first and second answer) explain healthy relationships. Between a bee and a flower or between bacteria and us.
I’m talking about a sick relationship where neither party has anything physical (or survival) to gain by helping an entity who because of bad luck has a bad config and is sick, crippled or in pain.
For example in animal documentaries we see that animals are fiercely protective of their newborn but because they’re healthy. But the moment they’re sick … they’re abandoned, like an injured lion cub or adult lion. They just leave him there.

I’d also like to know more about your salamander reasoning. What does the salamander have to do with sickness?

Thank you !

‘Paramedic’ Ants Are the First to Rescue and Heal Their Wounded Comrades

Matabele ants nurse each other back to health after battle with a surprisingly high success rate, a new study finds.

Here are some videos of animal empathy for injured or helpless young.

Oh yes I remember that gorilla and child case, it was all over the news. Very touching.
Thank you ,but as we just learned from our new discovery which tells us that we are cell-based life forms who are interested in survival … then what do we make of this gorilla showing inter-species care and emotion for this child?

Is the gorilla confused and misinterpreting what he’s seeing or is the gorilla capable of emotion?
If so, what would be the point of emotion from a survival perspective if “fight or flight” is our main engine?
What does the gorilla get out of this basically?
Maternal/Paternal instinct or something more ?
Suppose the gorilla is capable of emotion , then why would it be wrong if we kill this gorilla and eat it?
We are higher than him on the evolutionary ladder.
Maybe emotion is also a basic fight or flight instinct from an evolutionary perspective?
People with more emotion win?

Also after reading that ant article where it says that they’ve observed ants in this “programmed behavior” is this proof that emotion is a basic drive in cell-based organisms?
If yes, then would this be a free get out of jail card to impose our emotions on lesser cell based organisms such as animals or sick humans?

The ant example shows more basic evolutionary drive but the gorilla case is a bit similar to our case with the sick so I think these two are a bit different which kinda prove that higher intelligence and emotion Wins from an evolutionary perspective the higher it is.


The ant based “empathic” behavior is not intellectually but chemically driven.
But instead of dismissing this rudimentary example of group survival mechanics it should be considered a chemical proto type behvior that later evolved into conscious empathic behaviors in high order mammals such as found in apes, elephants, dolphins, and in domesticated animals such as cats and dogs.

And Koko with her kitten she named “All Ball” because it was a manx and had no tail.

Koko melts my heart.
Koko had the “conversation” with Robin Williams.

Ok let’s leave this here for today and pick it up on our next spontaneous chemical based processes. :slight_smile:

1 Like

1, for purely practical reasons, we don’t know what a sick person might be able to contribute.

If we are talking end of life, i think we spend too much resorces on that. But that’s a big shift in thinking.

Just basic compassion, we’re driven to it. It’s not logical. We cant just switch off an emotion.