Ernst Haeckels theory

In philosophy of mind, monism is usually contrasted with the dualist position that mind and matter are deeply different. Thus, monism is the claim that mind and matter are essentially the same. However, this 'sameness' has come in a number of different and contradictory varieties. For example, Hobbes felt that the mental is merely an epiphenomena of the physical, thus the physical is the one real substance (Contemporary materialism is also a form of physicalistic monism (see Churchland, 1996). In direct contrast, Berkeley postulated that the physical is just a collection of ideas (hence, idealism) and thus the mental is the only thing that really exists. Finally, there are a number of positions similar to Spinoza's property dualism, often referred to as dual-aspect theory. Spinoza held a position in which the mental and the physical are simply two modes of a more basic substance (it should be noted that strictly speaking, Spinoza was not a property dualist as he held that the mental and the physical were two of a possible infinite number of modes of the basic substance, nevertheless he is typically labeled as one). For Spinoza, this basic substance was God. Thus the only real thing is God, who is neither physical nor mental. Spinoza's position is similar to that of Russell's neutral monism, however the latter is not committed to the belief that a supreme being is the more basic substance.
(from the dictionary of Philosophy)

Before Ernst Haeckel said that evolution was being defeated by civiliztion, (read Christianity) Nietzsche was a monist. The argument, so obvious was in natural selection the fittest survive, and because of the altrusistic nature of Christianity, the strong gave their strength to allow the weak to survive. Having Sympathy' was the catchphrase at the turn of the 20th Century. Nietzsche postulated that
Humans are animals and subject to the laws of evolution. Not even the Darwinists of that period would say this. The dichotomy lay in the operation of Intelligence. Thus the periods' wisdom stated, "that the law of natural selection ended when intelligence began" (John Fiske 'Decent of man'1884)
The theory was that if two tribes of people lived in close proximity, One tribe allowed the weak to perish, and the other used its best efforts to keep everyone around and safe that after a period of time, the first tribe would be the stronger and smarter. Because civilization has ingnored natural selection, it has in a sense come to the edge of destruction. I see this in the political arena where the wealthy may not be the smartest, but they are the dominant group in the realm of decisions. The decaying catholic church is operated by the advise of lawyers these days. The Islamic world is a dark, suppresive, suicidal/homicidal pit of anger, The governments of the free world are for the most part the fronts for the evil wealth that controls the state. Look at russia and putin. The Jews are becoming an important world military power. Civilization has not allowed natural selection to take place. Civilization is on the brink of destroying evolutions crown, humanity.
I personally feel altruism is its own reward. I do positive things for others and enjoy the fact that I can. And I certainly appreciate it when others do positive things for me. It is an emotional lift. That Christianity says the act of giving brings more happiness than receiving is so true from the standpoint of resources.
How much better is to be doling it out when you have an abundance? I enjoy it and it makes me personally feel quite well off. Being a liberal, I think altruism is necessary. I have suffered and maybe I should have been flushed. But people helped me live and to get to a point where I can read and understand philosophy (with tutorial explanations) and come to a decision on the duality of life. There are too many people. Some governments are moving toward fixing this imbalance. Leaning on spirituality INSTEAD of intelligence they plunge into war. Leaning on God they say that what they do is for liberty and holiness. What do they do? Advance the ability of the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and the folks who don't belive what they believe get dead. And the antagonizers and the victims are both wrong in what they do because they ignore the basic rules and operating conditions of the Universe. The strong survive to create smarter and stronger. The weak perish.
Now if we were to really discover a way to allow the weak and the strong to live in harmony and conserve the natural resources, we'd have something. If human 'used' their intelligence to that end. It would all come out well. We may be however way past that point. Light years past it in fact.
Bowe