Biological existentialism

Is a cell an organism's way of propagating more organisms or is an organism a cell's way of propagating more cells?

Logically, a cell exists purely to create more of itself and an organism is just the method it utilizes to exploit a particular ecological niche.Cells vs. Organisms You could argue that the organism as a whole has more control over its cells (via processes such as apoptosis) and there isn't such a thing as cellular independance, but that's precisely what cancer is.

That being said, it's likely that emotions, "sentient thought" and other touted concepts like "love (in all forms)" are purely the manifestations or relics of biological necessity. Love serves a function in that it provides psychological stability (and dependancy), plus it increases the chance of you or your gene's continued survival. Some arguments you can make from this standpoint:

All emotions are entirely likely to be the product/result of biological necessity - and possess no innate profound significance.

Purpose beyond procreation and survival is an illusion. The meaning of life is sex.

Is everyone fundamentally a walking bag of meat and hormones?

Maybe survival of the fitness on an individual level has ended with teamwork. Like individuals sacrificing their lives to save someone close to them or and individuals going hungry to feed others who are more hungry. The people he has sacrificed for is less fit that him and if he sacrifices his life for them, his genes would not propegate but the less fit genes would.

I read somewhere that since you and your sibling shares ~100% of the same genes,it would make sense to sacrifice your life for him. Since you and your cousin shares 1/4 of the same genes you would have to save 4 of your cousins for your sacrifice to make biological sense.

Teamwork would only make biological sense if the people in your team are very close to you biologically. Most of the teamwork happening now (like say being a pirate and living in a city) happens with people not close to one. So would it really make sense to risk ones life for them? So evolution with respect to survival of the fittest might really be ending. Or maybe the criteria for survival of the fittest has changed; ie. survival of the fittest means that an invidual must only risk himself to help people biologically very close to him. Obviously spouses are excluded because they are a key to help procreate and raise the progeny.