1) I think that for humans, the reproductive urge is very indirect, and less important a foundation of morality than you seem to think. If it were, then the more prosperous societies would have at least as high a birthrate as struggling peasant societies....
If, however, evolution works only through the passing-on of genes, then from an evolutionary standpoint lower-than-replacement societies are an evolutionary dead end.
True, from a very long-term perspective. But we are what we are, and it seems to me that our "moral imperative" to pass on our genes has been made very, very indirect. It probably worked well enough in prehistorical times, but not anymore.
But the implications for that contradiction won't really be felt for many more generations - after all, the world's population is still increasing even today. I trust that eventually most civilizations will be somewhat free, and therefore prosperous, and I predict their birthrates will fall as well. Maybe my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter will be hurt by its effects, but I have a hard time worrying about such a vague risk to her. :-)
. I look at morality as placing the individual's long-term interests over the individual's short-term interests.
But in the "long" term (which isn't very long on a geological scale) all individuals die. Which is to say, long-term individual needs have no lasting meaning. Here again if we are to grant the truth of evolution, the only long-term "need" for me as an individual is that my genes are passed on and protected in future generations. I cannot protect my progeny after I die -- only the group, which exists after I'm gone, can do that.
Ah, but that's why it's important that we leave the moral landscape at least as "clean" as we find it! For our childrens' sake (and so on for at least a few generations).
Note that evolution is not exactly silent on the proper means for such protection; for example, the first thing a new Silverback gorilla tries to do is kill the former leader's offspring so that they cannot compete with his own offspring.
Yeah, that says something about the morality of hereditary monarchies, doesn't it!
Gotta go, & I'll be away from the 'puter for a couple hours...
Yup -- it says that murder works for them. And in the atheist/evolutionary world, if it works, then it must be OK. It's the only moral judgement an evolution-only model of objective reality can support.
If evolution says it works, Ayn Rand certainly has no grounds for calling it wrong.
Of course the fact that she nevertheless called it wrong, says a lot about Ayn Rand's tendency to place her emotional desires above reason (flatly contradicting her own first principle). I say that because only an unwillingness to look can possibly explain her failure to see the logical consequences of her claims.