sure, but lets say there are benefits to the abuse. say the abuse amounts to exploitation, which always does derive some sort of value from the abuse of others. let's say the infrastructure that's needed for the society which wants to colonize space requires a certain amount of this exploitation to get where it wants to go. then what's the right thing to do? notice i say what's the right thing to do, not what is needed to colonize space? that would be the 'moral' question as is currently understood. it is easy to argue that morality is objective when doing the 'right thing' is working in your favor, but does morality never demand any sacrifice? perhaps i was mistaken here, though i don't ultimately feel like i was trying to make the point that love (or eros) isn't necessary for a society to function. simply that you were overemphasizing its role in colonizing space. i still maintain that the barrier between these two elements is an artificial one (eros and thanatos) but if anything they both seem necessary. that is assuming i'm understanding exactly what each one encompasses correctly, which i might not be. but i'll expand on that further below.* theoretically you're correct. in practice, however, this trend has played itself out time and time again. war provides a sort of drastic and immediate motivation that more long term and vague goals lack in intensity. *but i think it's interesting that once an act willed through aggression and antagonism produces life enhancing technology it becomes an 'agent of eros,' despite having the same initial intentions that would so often be dubbed an agent of thanatos. is your morality really any less relative than mine? i'm aware that it appears that way, however i'm only trying to prompt you with the underbelly of our nature that you have decided is of less worth than our other half. i'm not necessarily pro-war, but i thought i'd remind you of its value. my relativity is not in favoring one mystical force over another, it is in maintaining the distinction between the two as artificial. and if the scenario provided were to present a case where what is commonly considered 'good' coincided with survival instinct, i dare say moral relativity would leave the bout unscathed.