Empathy, really?

This may end up being less thought out than my previous posts since I too have a lot due tomorrow. However, what struck me in the book as peculiar was how empathy is valued. I can see how valuing a communal, collective setting would be fitting given the sort of post-apocalyptic world earth that remains. However, if I’m not wrong, isn’t it actually altruism that lies at the root of man’s (and other species’) collective efforts? Not to mention, how exactly are they able to empathize with animals anyways? From what I’m aware of, though sympathy is easy, it is already fairly difficult to truly empathize with other humans given that empathy requires that an individual to actually experience the emotions of another in emotional resonance. Yet, they can seemingly comprehend and emotionally resonate with the emotions of a cat? Furthermore, to be able to stand in the metaphorical shoes of a cat somehow has become defining as the prominent human trait? I mean, momentarily disregarding the absurdity of it all, what then does that mean for people with antisocial personality disorder or those who just don’t like animals? Does that make them any less human? If that were the case, then a large portion of the boys I grew up with in elementary school would be classified as androids based on these standards. Given that many roasted ants with magnifying glasses, “played” with insects and dissected worms on a regular basis without ever being taught to, shouldn’t that then be an aspect of human nature in one of its most natural forms? Oddly enough, in the Androids world, the human sense o f “empathy” seems to be a social construct more so than anything else. It’s used in order to differentiate those whom differ from the norm in terms of valuing animals as androids, or the post-contemporary day witches.