I understand Dawkins arguments. I just don't find them particularly compelling in a more generalized humanist perspective. To elaborate, of course my family get the majority of my financial, emotional, social, etc, support. I'm around them the most. But does that preclude me from inviting strangers in need into my life if I have the ability to help them without drastic change in my quality of life? To give perspective, I plan on never having biological children, so my genetic legacy isn't that important to me. I have other family members who are having plenty of children, the chromosomes that I would value according to Dawkins are being passed on, in fact, in greater variety than I would have been able to manage on my own. Dawkins argument made perfect sense to me when Ayn Rand also made perfect sense to me. Both are a bit too sure of themselves to be reasonable to a mature mind.