That’s not true. The biological world isn’t fundamentally based on competition.
Competition inside one species actually is decremental to their survival. The optimal strategy for members of a species is cooperation, especially when that reduces scarcity.
Edit: I forgot to mention that you’re also committing the naturalistic fallacy.
B) A beneficial system for anyone involved. Nature is a cruel system does not optimize for individual organisms. It optimizes for the basic machinery of evolution, maximizing suffering if it’s beneficial to the continued existence of the genes responsible. Why give a fuck about genes when your life has unnecessary suffering as a result of them?
Natural =/= good, nor does what should be true arise from how things are. There’s no answer for what is good out there, only clues on how you could achieve what you decide is right.
That’s not true. The biological world isn’t fundamentally based on competition.
Competition inside one species actually is decremental to their survival. The optimal strategy for members of a species is cooperation, especially when that reduces scarcity.
Edit: I forgot to mention that you’re also committing the naturalistic fallacy.
For those lower on the pecking order, maybe. There are plenty of species where a few dominate the many of their own kind, however.
Notice how that is not:
A) A universal strategy, or…
B) A beneficial system for anyone involved. Nature is a cruel system does not optimize for individual organisms. It optimizes for the basic machinery of evolution, maximizing suffering if it’s beneficial to the continued existence of the genes responsible. Why give a fuck about genes when your life has unnecessary suffering as a result of them?
Natural =/= good, nor does what should be true arise from how things are. There’s no answer for what is good out there, only clues on how you could achieve what you decide is right.
And the leaders gets killed if those lower on the pecking order don’t like them anymore.