Posted: Apr 27, 2021 11:10 am
by Social-Spacetime
This is what you said in your last post:

Spearthrower wrote:
No one has contested the existence of the fight/flight response.


You, yourself have just contested the existence of flight-or-fight response when you said in your last post:

Spearthrower wrote:
1) Acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety - and this is eminently observable by the fact that all prey animals risk depredation in order to acquire nutrients.


If your claim were true, then "acquisition of nutrition would be a more basal need than safety," as you have just stated.
So lets test your theory:

A walk in the woods:
Image

You and a friend go for a hike in the woods, but for some reason, you both got lost. Months later, you're both on the verge of starvation. Using your last bit of energy, you manage to find food. You both start eating really fast because you're starving, but you manage to get food caught in your throat. So you start choking immediately. Under your claim, "acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety." So instead of your friend giving you the Heimlich manuever, he offers you more food instead. You just stated that:

Spearthrower wrote:
1) Acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety - and this is eminently observable by the fact that all prey animals risk depredation in order to acquire nutrients.


I can't believe I am saying this to you, but I must reiterate the need for SAFETY FIRST (immediate safety to one's survival -- the 1st sub-law):

Image

Lastly, the fact that you're CHOKING because of food caught in your throat is a flight-or-fight response. Your body is protecting it's immediate SAFETY, not it's concern for FOOD (which WAS it's first concern until you started choking).

Maslow puts physiological needs (food) first in his Hierarchy of Needs, and he's wrong. :coffee: