[mruts]

Well, we can look at evolution on other animals to understand where we came from at what the “natural” state of the world. And the answer is clear: the natural state of the world is suffering, sex, and death.

I’m not sure how you could ever think that love is somehow the a priori concept of the world. Do single-celled organisms “love”? What about insects?

The answer is no, and evolution tells us what this cruel world is all about: propogation of genes through sex. We, as beings, are irrelevent: just hosts for a game that is being played at a different level.

[ripsawridge]

Ridiculous. If the natural state of the world is "suffering, sex, and death," it's also joy, sex and birth. Sex is at least value neutral -- if you are going to sandwich it between suffering and death I may as well put it between joy and birth -- which are real experiences. Animals seem to experience joy, to play, etc.

Animals also take care of their young, they often mourn those who died.

Plus, your incredulity at the thought of "love" between single-celled organisms is without basis. Love is a subjective state which we can only infer. We (well, some of us, not you I guess) think it's real because we've felt it at a level to which to describe it as not real would do violence to our conception of real/unreal.

And then we infer that it's felt in other organisms around us based on their actions.

Now, a single-celled organism really doesn't have a great range of "actions/behaviors" it can show us. Therefore we don't get to see it. This says nothing about whether it's experienced or not.

[mruts]

>Animals also take care of their young, they often mourn those who died

Animals also kill their young on purpose, including people.

Do your cells in your eyes and in your butt love each other? If so, you have a pretty flexible definition of love.

Of course love is a thing, but is a much more recent phenomenon than pain. This is why it's much easier to feel pain, that in it is to feel love.

Humans and elements have a "S-shaped" function in which they rather avoid pain than feel pleasure. Would you rather feel a lot of joy for an hour or not be tortured for an hour? Most choose the latter: the stick is more powerful than the carrot.

I think it's a little disingenuous to that animals feel "love." Neurochemically, it's a little unclear as to what the feeling of love even is. Pain, on the other hand, is quite clear.

Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that pain has been more of driving factor of evolution than love. And then in it also follows that pain has been more prevalent than love in the history of the world.

[ripsawridge]

There are subjective and unknowable states. The whole world is not inside your head. By asserting that the cells in my butt can't possibly love each other, you've made a pretty lifeless machine psychology that I don't have to accept, happily. You can't even prove your idea -- I would like you to be aware you are making a faith-based argument. Anyway, cheers. :)

[module0000]

>> Animals also take care of their young, they often mourn those who died.

Many animals also eat their young. Taking care of their young is just as ingrained in their evolved behavior as eating them.

Otherwise, I agreed with the rest of your post. The whole "do <x> organism 'love'" concept is a bit of a mind bender as usual.

[module0000]

>> We, as beings, are irrelevent: just hosts for a game that is being played at a different level.

Careful there, you'll bring out a whole cadre of people dragging you over the coals with that sort of opinion. They'll call you "godless" or something else, which translates to "I can't debate your opinion, so neener-neener".