Comment: Family or Collective

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Colltivism isn't about collectives (see in situ)

Family or Collective

Call it whatever you want. I perceive the group/individual relationship as symbiotic, rather than predator/prey. A group is an organism. An individual is an organ.

What is a group, if not a collection of individuals?
Individuals can't exist without a group. Asexual reproduction?
By natural law, the individual's existence is inherently collective.

Isn't Life about survival?
As the outlaw, Josey Wales, says, "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy."

Ultimately, every individual, every body, dies.
The human body is a vessel, a living container, for DNA, the Life-giving material with which an individual is entrusted by ancestral generations, the Collective.

An individual cannot live forever. Never gonna happen.
Only the group can do that.
However, within groups, the DNA embodied by an individual can survive.
It is only within collectives that DNA, which creates human individuals, can "live forever", through future, successive generations of offspring.

The only way to ensure Life is to ensure the existence and prosperity of the Collective, the family, of which the individual is a part. Does this not infer an individual's primal, moral obligation to the Collective?

Of course, one can decide against Life.
Personally, I would consider such a decision to be suicide, immoral, selfish, and a violation of one's inherited, ancestral trust; a denial of birthright.

We are GIVEN Life; to whatever extent that we are able to ensure its existence, we OWE Life.

"For every gift, a curse."