mitchellmckain writes:
Besides the point of a next stage of evolution is not that this process cannot be found elsewhere in nature, quite the opposite, I am saying that is an inevitable part of the process of the development of life on this planet. Anyway, it does change the rules that most people attribute to evolution and more importantly it combats the misuse of the ideas of evolution that were behind social darwinism and the eugenics program of the nazis. It introduces a philosophy that sees medical technology and the care of the handicapped as a positive forces for the evolution of man.
I am not convinced that medical technology does actually represent a step forward at all. It seems to me that what is really behind the desire to make gains in medical technology is the hope that WE will live longer healthier lives. Our hope is that we won't have to deal with cancer, alzheimer's, ALS etc. I don't see the desire to advance medical technology as being altruistic at all, in contrast to our desire to care for the handicapped.
At the same time as we are increasing our longevity we are decreasing the number of kids we are having. I would suggest in generations past people got pleasure from contributing to the next generation by having kids and raising them. (I realize this is a very general statement.) Nowadays our focus seems to be on us. People aren't having kids because it impacts on lifestyle, even though in the western world, materially speaking, we enjoy the highest standard of living in history.
I guess my point is that I am not convinced at all of your basic premise, which as I understand it, is that our sense of altruism is evolving, and that we as a society are becoming more altruistic. I tend to think that the phrase of the 70's, "looking out for number one", is very much alive and well.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.