[quote=ClosetMonster]In fact, it is this truth which binds and directs much of our behaviors, and just because we can symbolize things (put them into words) doesn't necessarily make reality any more complex than our reaction to our root biology. In other words, I think we've as much chance making it through Nature's gauntlets as does an amoeba or a cockroach, provided we have the needed dna for survival.
[/quote]
Provided any misconcieved notions doesn't blind us like lemmings off a cliff, we'll do fine.
^Pretty much the entire moral of "To Light a Fire" aside from the value of the buddy-system... provided you're [i]both[/i] knowledgeable... [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOUJPBziUQw]otherwise you die like Specialist Wade[/url].
(subverted, in that he's shot in the liver, pretty much as garaunteed bleed-out as a heart-shot or a stab in the kidney, [i]just slower[/i])

Our desire to symbolize things also extends to the need to personify things, a lesson we could do well to forget. Life of Pi.

[b]So who gets the tree-house?[/b]

Blue-orange is a scale of altuism vs selfishness. As it is possable to be altuisticly evil on an ideological level, or to be selfishly good on the applied level.
-Is it more important to eat, or to die dignified and 'right'?

[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality]TvTropes summary of it in RL[/url]
Natural selection itself could be said to promote Blue And Orange Morality of a sort, as it promotes behaviors that maximize an individual's genetic contribution to future generations. Period. Whether that maximization occurs through intrafamilial altruism that safeguards one's close kin at one's own expense, or through rape, infanticide, and brutally killing off one's competitors doesn't make a lick of difference, [i]so long as it [b]works[/b][/i].

-Take two people completely opposed on some issue- say an avid hunter and a member of an animal rights group. Chances are, they will find themselves literally unable to comprehend the other's point of view. The core element of many animal rights arguments is that animals have the same rights as people (or should), thus, shooting them is morally equivalent (or at least similar) to murder. Meanwhile, the core elements of the hunter's viewpoint is that this argument is patently false, and that humans who hunt are as much a part of the natural environment as any other apex predator. These two views simply cannot be resolved in any meaningful way, and both sides believe they are "good" while the other side is "evil" (or, at least, willfully ignorant), making the essential conflict a blue-and-orange morality issue.
◦ And yet, both see nature conservation and treating wildlife with respect as [i]very high[/i] virtues (albeit with different takes on the concepts), and will freak the hell out if a species is in danger of disappearing or a natural habitat is threatened with destruction.

[url=http://www.cracked.com/article/18364_6-insanely-awesome-things-1900s-thought-wed-have-by-now/]Oh, and the thing about horsies...[/url]