"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

>> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
>> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>>
>> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
>> which
>> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
>> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
>
> Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.

No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.

It's
> difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
> disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
> other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
> that this is NOT hardwired.

Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.

> Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
> read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
> Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.

You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.