That people do it does not mean it is all right to lie. And if you make a practice of lying, and become know as a liar, and therefore, untrustworthy, you will find your advantage quickly disappearing. In fact, you will find lying to be futile, since the success of lying depends on your being believed, and if you become known as a liar, you will no longer be believed. Remember the story of the boy who cried,"wolf!".

Example:

Homo Sapien sustains six evolutionary layers of a sliding scale efficiency.

Neanderthal sustains three layers because isolation from higher level/layer resources keeps the probability of producing a tipping-point-percentage of evolutionary tool-making prime movers from proliferating.


In the Neanderthal case, deception is more prominent and limiting because it keeps evolution suppressed. In the Homo Sapien example, lying/deception are a lower option and should only be conducted when limited to equally limited people and resources. Therefore, it is acceptable to lie when you know the probabilities of upholding the greater good weigh/balance toward sustaining such value metrics, and consequently evolutionary scale. The Homo Sapien should use the same tools the lesser understand, so the Homo Sapien and onward/upward, have the greater probability of sustaining.

When in Rome...

It should be obvious this kind of rationale is only achievable at higher levels of evolutionary scale, therefore education and the synchronous sharing of the latest, greatest tech/tools/information, is paramount.


A continuing axiom that evolves from such metrics is: should countries like the US continue to propagate tech to the lesser sustainable societies of the world, when it becomes evident that doing so will only continue to limit both sides of the equation?

This is why science, or philosophical measure, becomes even more crucial as the ratio of humans-to-resources continues to become more-and-more tenuous.