[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

People survive by outwitting, militarily defeating, or making a compromise with  those of a different gullibility. Could be a  religious difference or a political one - they are almost inseparable in some places. Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.

It doesn't tell why gullible people survived.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Human rights are generally a Bad Thing, or at least a reflection of what is wrong with a society.

In a civilised society the population determines what is unacceptable and makes laws to prevent and punish unacceptable behavior - a legal code based on wrongs.

Is it acceptable to let old and sick people die?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.

Are babies and toddlers parasites? Why or why not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

a legal code based on wrongs.

In information security, we can use we call it black list approach. Antiviruses fall into this category. It's vulnerable to unknown threats.
The stricter and more secure approach is white list. It only allow requests from known listed sources. It's vulnerable from failing to function when there's a necessary operation not yet included in the list.
A compromised alternative is using heuristic approach.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is very little need for rights as the State is subject to the same laws and exists to serve the citizen. The basic rights to vote for your representatives, who form the government, and to a fair trial if  accused of wrongdoing, are pretty much all that is required.

What if all rights are revoked?
Who run the state? Aren't they humans?
You often make random assertions without showing how they are necessary.

[alancalverd]

It doesn't tell why gullible people survived.

Because they were more resilient than other gullible people. Nothing to do with Jaweh vs Baal, but much to do with good military planning and execution despite whatever gullibility existed.

[alancalverd]

What if all rights are revoked?

Until the UK joined the EU, we had very few rights - indeed not much more than were granted by Magna Carta in 1215. So we survived for about 850 years and ruled most of the world, with practically none.

[alancalverd]

Is it acceptable to let old and sick people die?

If they wish to die, it is immoral to keep them alive. Even if you ignore morality you will eventually run out of medical options. 
What is not acceptable in a civilised society is to ration medical services according to the patient's financial assets rather than clinical needs.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What if all rights are revoked?

Until the UK joined the EU, we had very few rights - indeed not much more than were granted by Magna Carta in 1215. So we survived for about 850 years and ruled most of the world, with practically none.

There's a significant difference between a few and none.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is it acceptable to let old and sick people die?

If they wish to die, it is immoral to keep them alive. Even if you ignore morality you will eventually run out of medical options. 
What is not acceptable in a civilised society is to ration medical services according to the patient's financial assets rather than clinical needs.

If they want to stay alive, are others obliged to help them?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.

Are babies and toddlers parasites? Why or why not?

Most people don't think so, and think of them as investment instead. They used up resources now in order to generate resources in the future. No society can survive without investing in their future generations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Good Delusion | What's The Closest We Can Get To Objective Ethics?

The arguments in video sound reasonable. But it's unfortunate that the speaker doesn't continue to reason up why avoiding pain and seeking for pleasure are good. They seem to be taken for granted.
I've pointed out before that they are good for helping conscious agents to survive. Pain and pleasure act as meta rewards in sparse feedback systems like life. Without them, before the agents develop long term reasoning, the alternative would be random actions, which are not very effective nor efficient.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.

Are babies and toddlers parasites? Why or why not?

Most people don't think so, and think of them as investment instead. They used up resources now in order to generate resources in the future. No society can survive without investing in their future generations.

In currently existing life forms, future generation means different individuals than currently existing ones. Scientific progress happen one funeral at a time, as a scientist said. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's predicted that someone who will live for a thousand years has already been alive today.

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

[alancalverd]

No society can survive without investing in their future generations.

Society is unimportant. People matter.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Society is unimportant. People matter.

What count as a people?
In a multicellular organisms, each cell has lost its independence, and depends on the survival of the organism as a whole.
Same things happen to individual members of social organisms.
Protecting individuals is an instrumental goal to preserve the society as a whole.

[alancalverd]

Not "a" people, but people - things like you and me. "A" people tend to make war on "another" people because they are told that they are different and therefore a threat. The concept is immoral.

When society as a whole decides to eliminate certain members because they are somehow "different", protecting individual members of that minority is morally imperative but clearly not conducive to the preservation of the society as a whole.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not "a" people, but people - things like you and me. "A" people tend to make war on "another" people because they are told that they are different and therefore a threat. The concept is immoral.

Which concept?
Why so?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When society as a whole decides to eliminate certain members because they are somehow "different", protecting individual members of that minority is morally imperative but clearly not conducive to the preservation of the society as a whole.

It depends on what's the difference that they have. How that difference affects the other members of the society.
Imagine a society of passengers of a flying commercial airplane. A few member are found drilling the cabin wall. Persuasion didn't work.

[alancalverd]

Which concept?
Why so?

The concept of "a" people, for the reason stated.

[alancalverd]

It depends on what's the difference that they have.

I specifically referred to what they are, not what they do. Civilised laws criminalise actions, superstitions criminalise appearance, parentage, etc.