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?

>>33
"There must be some genetic influence involved."
There's no biological mechanism anyone knows of that has the imperative to differentiate race per se. There is the biological imperative to find people you can relate to. In other words, race is somewhat incidental. Studies show that people who grow up in communities of a different race prefer partners of that race in adulthood. Sexual selection is a predominantly cultural phenomenon.