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?

>>26
Also the temptation to exploit those who consider you a teammate grows. If someone could cheat and get away with it, then doing so would make them fitter.

>>27
I think enough difference. The competition between races cannot be about what they share, but what they don't share and therefore if a species is competing with itself, it is how great the difference that will effect who an individual feels aligned to.

Religion and political preference aren't deteremined by genes but by sense data and so also whether you're a racist or not, I guess, so you are right. However, when I went to my first university lecture I was surprised how everyone sat with people who looked similar racially, and these friendships established then continued throughout the entire course. There must be some genetic influence involved.