---That can be called a Frequently Raised Argument. I haven't once heard a clear answer why is this model needed at all to explain socio-biological evolution. The death of those who don't want to live don't usually reduce the chance of those who do want to live to survive. In fact, we can say it's exactly the opposite - the death of the first <let's call 'em Philodeath> only extend the amount of resources per living philolife creature. Also pay attention to the fact that philodeath memes prosper in times of population-density growth. So, not only determinism isn't needed to explain nature, every nature, it also doesn't quite fit socio-biological evolution in this case. Does it? Lior.