>>14156780>They are completely dodging the questionno, they are validly questioning OP’s premise and its attendant assumptions which exclude all possible answers to OP’s question except what will likely already confirm their bias. let’s take a knife to each ligament, shall we?
>Why is Nature so brutal and fucked up?this is a failure to use descriptive language i.e. what does “fucked up” mean? even if I were to assume he means to imply that nature necessitates “kill or be killed”, this is provably false. the leading cause of death for all lifeforms is senescence.
>Why is this "survival of the fittest" so fundamentally embedded into the laws of physicsnot only is this an absurd statement, but “survival of the fittest” was put in the grave decades ago. look into evolutionary biology.
>that only the most ruthless always conquer and rise to the top?also provably false. human beings are not the dominant species on the planet because of our brutality, but because of our radically broad expression of empathy. not only are we forced to care for our young far longer than most animals, but the empathy we employ for that task is shared to non-human creatures quite extensively. whether we’re naming and selectively breeding crop cultivars or raising and working alongside generations of livestock, agriculture, and the resultant explosion in social complexity, would not have been possible without our tendency to treat non-humans like humans, specifically like human children. even if you deny my statement and evidence above, look at sharks. sharks are by far the most brutal sea creature, but they’re regularly destroyed by sea creatures which dutifully care for their young and spend their lives in the company of extended family (dolphins, orcas).
hope that helps.
