I never said we were not, when somebody say's animals they tend to mean "the other members of the animal kingdom", the term "cruelty to animals" is an example of when rational people can use the term appropriately without somebody quibbling.
I mistakenly assumed the same here.
Sorry but I honestly don't understand your point above. You asked for evidence that we are selfish, so I said study any mammal on the planet and you'll see that evidence.
The point about the above was that what applies for others animals does not apply to us, because we are capable of altering our environment - they are not, it's a pretty significant distinction.
Humans are mammals and if your contention is that humans share absolutely nothing in common with other living beings in terms of instinct and survival then we'll have to disagree on that fundemental point.
Typical straw man style argument, I never implied that we have absolutely nothing in common - just that with our additional abilities (for one, the ability to alter our environment) allows us to alter the development of future generations (for the better or worse).
Have you read Richard Dawkin's book the 'Selfish Gene'? Whilst he is talking about a gene you can extrapolate the same basic theory to human in general. That being that our only real goal in life is to pass on our genes and do our utmost to ensure those genes are given the platform to reproduce later.
I've got a number of Dawkin's books, I'd have thought if you were so familiar with evolution you would know that the passing of genes is what's important.
If being the "best altruist" allows you to do that, evolution would encourage just that, I agree that on a biological level our main motivation is to pass on our genetic codes to future generations - but any method would enable that.
All you need is to be rated higher against other men (from a male perspective), if that means being the "richest" in capitalism, or the most ethical in some "post-capitalist" society is irrelevant.
Plenty of people have attempted to use evolution to push a particular economic theory, but in reality which one is active is meaningless - just that the propensity to reproduce is increased if a certain behaviour type is present).
Ultimately, living things will do more to promote their genes than ensure the survival of non-related ones. That can bee seen in pretty much all living things, most of which aren't being infleunced by a economic system (ergo so the argument our selfishness is caused by capitalism rather than the other way around is demonstrably false).
That's assuming direct survival is linked into competition, which with our technology it isn't - I don't see people fighting to the death over a loaf of bread for a child in the UK, do you?.
The main thing deciding the passing on of genes is male/female preference of partner in the developed world.
But there is a difference with empathy and sacrificing yourself for the good of the community. Empathy usually costs nothing for a start.
Acting on empathy does have a cost, usually in materials/time or in some cases danger to life (pending on the situation).
Act's of self sacrifice are not that uncommon.
And whilst you could argue empathy is a key ingredient of a working communistic model, so would be the abolition of jealously and I'm unaware of any trends suggesting that emotion will go away any time soon.
Empathy has a key in the function of any society.
Think of it this way,
in society A - everybody is a capitalist 100% selfish, most of the population are malnourished & weak due to gross poverty.
In society B - They have a socialist form of capitalism & look after each other, the entire population is well fed & strong.
Society A & society B goto war - Who will win?.
While I admit the above situation is unlikely it's just to highlight that in evolution group mechanic needs to be taken into account, as sometimes helping the "other" can yield greater benefits to oneself (and increase the chance they can produce).
As social creatures it isn't that simple.
Engineer a situation where all people always have food, shelter, worthwhile work and the opportunity to progress and the average happiness across the population would increase.
This pretty much, as it would provide a greater level of equality of opportunity - increase social cohesion & reduce the amount of negative behaviour.
