If the natural instinct of human fucking beings was to just murder and cheat each other we would never have formed society to get into wars in the first fucking place.

Yes we would have. And we did. It was all in self-interest.

It takes trust and mutual aid to build society.

That's just the expansion of in-groups due to expediency. Show me the society, in history or modern times, that reached the level of perfectly altruistic cosmopolitanism, inclusion, tolerance, multiculturalism, diversity, or whatever else you want to call it. Because that's what you seem to be claiming humanity is and has been from the start.

I dont need to read your madman eugenics scrawlings about the finality of evil to disprove this.

See, I knew you would try to attribute some weird shit like that to me. Nothing I said was in support of eugenics. In fact I outright reject them as I consider them an atrocity. But if you think eugenics hasn't featured prominently in human history, then you haven't been paying close enough attention. And denying that reality is a disservice to all of its victims in past, present, and future.

I also said nothing about "the finality of evil." I said it's not the default state of humanity. I never said it can't be our destiny. I would love to believe it is. I don't know the future, but I certainly believe it's possible. I feel less and less convinced as time goes on that it's even remotely likely, at least in the next several hundred years. But I'm certain that it's not a guarantee.

The world we live in literally would not even exist in the capacity it does if human society was built on deception instead of trust.

Yes it would. And I hate to break this to you, but, it is.

This is factually why it is falling about now.

Yes. Finally a statement I can agree with.

Bytemeister's anecdote related an example of his personal altruism. Which, I assure you, makes him the rare exception rather than the rule. Most people would not care or go out of their way to do that much or even think about it at all.

That does not contradict his statement that you cannot base a society entirely off of the expectation that everyone will always be that caring and altruistic to the point where we can all rely on and expect the altruism of others to always be able to meet our personal needs.

Bytemeister can simultaneously be altruistic himself, while acknowledging that the average member of society is not altruistic enough to make a system like that work for any length of time.

you have a story where you spent an hour of your time and effort to help your neighbour without getting anything out of it yourself.

everyone contributes as best they’re able with no concern for getting value out of an exchange proportional to the effort put in

If you read a little slower, and tried a little harder, you might understand what I actually wrote. I'm gonna go ahead and lay it out here, since you seem to be struggling...

I am not everyone, you are not everyone. Everyone is not me, and everyone is not you. People are individuals, and as individuals, they have different experiences in life. Those different experiences cause those individuals to behave differently. Some people do like helping others, (like I me), but not everyone does. You'll note in my story that not all my neighbors worked together to find this guy and let him know about his house, I doubt any of them did except me. I called the police about it, and they tried to help, because they are paid by my city (and by extension, me and my neighbors) to help if they can. I do not hold a social view that depends on everyone being as altruistic (if not more so) than I am. I have a personal philosophy that you should help people, and prioritize helping them based on how close they are to you. I put myself first, a little selfish, sure, but it's the old "put your mask on first, then help others" logic. You can't help others effectively if you need help yourself. After that, it's my family first, then friends, neighbors, residents of my state, countrymen, neighboring countries, continent, and then the rest of the world. However, it would be foolish of me to think that everyone has this same willingness to help, or the same logical progression of altruism for their fellow man. That is why I as an individual can help others with no expectations of direct compensation without characterizing myself as a naive fool who flunked out of homeschool, because I didn't actually state anything about the education of individuals that help others freely. Your comment is a strawman, where you build a different argument, and attack that, rather than debate what I have actually said.

Now, I'm asking you a question to make sure you are arguing in good faith. Please be sure to address it in your reply. Did you build a strawman intentionally, or did you do it accidentally?