I still remain unconvinced on the matter of killing as a natural behavior. How is it exactly more natural than not killing? Both occur in a natural setting. Both are equally opportune behavior traits available to an evolving species. But it seems that to say "it is in our instincts" renders the behavior permenant (more "real"?) and to some extent better than the other choice. Are we sneaking in values while playing a fashionable role as a post-darwinian survivalist, using the "objective" clarity of naturalist philosophy? Oh, how I love the little inserts: cells, ecological, procreation, survival! But not so free of value. Slight-of-hand is only effective when used against the unschooled in magic. Perhaps the "brainwashed" are simply developing a new instinct? In fact, you would have to agree that all instincts are to some extent wired into our brains, therefore, we are all to some extent "brainwashed". I kind of like the new instinct towards no-harm. It's a move toward being less re-active and more pro-active. But this is a value judgement. I think that the no-harm principle toward behavior may help our species. It might even override our current wiring and wash out all of the primal filth that has us still too closely related to the great apes.