Dear Mike

The "selfish gene" theory is completely left-field in terms of this discussion.

Let me quote myself:
"If you accept that "the essence of civilisation is specialisation" then you need a co-operative community to ensure specialists (weavers, metal-workers, builders, runners, fire-makers) can eat. Only once production is so great that all members of a community are no longer part of the survival effort, can selfishness as we see today be compatible with survival."

My point relates to selfish behaviour, yours to a theory about genes trying to ensure representation.

Let us deviate onto your point for a moment. Please consider that the "selfish" behaviour of populations like ours, leaves fit, healthy specimens of your age with no offspring and therefore limited genetic survival no matter what else such a person does. Meanwhile poorer, less selfish communities would see such people with several offspring and more to come. So which "selfish genes" are surviving best? Not those in the selfish individual. Look at US population figures and tell me I'm wrong.

Clearly selfish behaviour and selfish genes are not particularly connected. No amount of patronising verbiage can overcome such logic. I do not understand why you introduced this topic or why you think it is so terribly clever that you can belittle others over it.

>>Did I say churchs are "so awful", Joe Bob? I'm disappointed.<<

Oh. So when you lumped churches in with "war, ignorance, and arrogance" you just happened to choose those examples, you might equally have chosen "love, generosity and peace"? Give over.

I've a lot to do, this is hardly a useful exchange so I'm leaving it there. Go ahead, have the last word.

JR