On balance, human nature is more selfish than altruistic.

"The biological role of any male animal is to mate with as many females as possible and then leave the female to support the offspring. This is quite obviously not altruistic" This true part of this is that the male seeks to spread his genetic line as far as it may go. However, the latter I hold disagreement with. In the animal kingdom, a vast amount of males take time out of their lives to put forth the effort in both defending and supplying their offspring so that they may have the greatest odds of survival. The point of the species of the male is not merely to have the children born, its built-in biological response seeks to have success of its offspring so that they may spread their genetic influence even further. That is my evolutionary argument in kind to your response in kind of my first. Heh. You respond with a rebuttal, but in the same response you concede that in most cases, the parents altruistically contribute for the good of the child. I will consider this a victory for the strength of this example in the altruistic nature of humanity. However, my struggle does not end there. I must still prove to you that human nature, aside from those who are parents, still is more altruistic than selfish. Your second rebuttal argues that there will always be violence in a time of starvation. Though this statement is rather absolute, I will not dispute that in most cases there is. However, humans have shown to have put forth conscious effort to distribute resources in ration in hopes of it being fair for all, a decision it in itself shows to be a strive for altruism over selfishness. I wished to show you an example using the Donner party to draw sticks over who would be sacrificed in order to be eaten for the good of all, but I was unfortunately only able to find a claim that stated that only the youngest of the children were given the meat. I will not make unwarranted claims, though I believe to have been told this from an appropriate source of perhaps a history book in my academia, so I will say that the choice to give it to the small children is but another example of altruism. Ordeal by Hunger: The Story of the Donner Party, page 32 states this with the source of one of the members of the Donner party. Good luck finding a pdf or something. Martyrs throughout history show us the implications of altruism on a society. Most of the prominent religions hold tales/historical accounts of those who have sacrificed for the greater good, and not just for the reason of making us believe that one did. It is a reflection on the structure of our society and the value it places on altruistic act itself. Martyrs are just like ethical military personnel, police officers, investigative muckraking journalists, holy leaders, prominent politicians, your own mother (in a sense). These people risk their well-being for the benefit of something greater than themselves, and it has helped us as a societal whole. Why else would you explain the prominence of non-profits and the like of the characters that "sacrifice" in modern media? We love those who are altruistic, and it stems from a love for all, not the love for self. I hope your work clears up. Thank you for reviving this lovely topic, I do enjoy clashes between two different philosophies.