Just because something is fun, is it good?
Something is fun because it is good.
Ever notice how much children love playing "chasies".
For fun, but unbeknown to them they're practicing for when the time comes when they'll need to evade and outrun someone or thing in a life or death situation.
Things are ingrained to be fun inside us for reasons we don't really know and don't need to know, it's the same for all mammals, and most birds.
Just because we don't know the reason doesn't make the reason unimportant. They're more important than we know, and more important than any arbitrary importance we could come up with. Like civilised society.
Using your human abilities to pay attention to the natural world can reveal the reasons behind many behaviours.
And it becomes clear that the restrictions law and order have put on humanity are ecologically detrimental. We are naturally built to behave a specific way which is harmonious with the natural world.
If you put electrodes on some of the plants in the amazon, so that the animals who previously ate them had to start eating something else, we'd see a huge problem arise.
This is what has happened to us, on a bigger more complicated scale.
It probably didn't seem important that we stay territorial to the "rational" minds of men in history. The urge was there but that was merely percieved as a bothersome quirk in the species. And they went about trying to fix it, with laws and what have you.
It was a rocky road, and the natural territorial urges still manifest themselves in human behaviour today, but with irregularity and in unnatural settings which came about via a lapse in the satisfying of basic urges.
Now we have "environmental problems" which entirely stem from this altering of the behaviour of one of the parts of the environment, us.
It would be impossible for environmental problems to arise were tribes of human beings competing for tenure over territories which they depended on.
The tribes territory would have to be in perfect ecological order for it to produce a living for the tribe, the tribe would die off before a substantial dent could be put in the productivity of their territory because they'd be on the top of the food chain, and they'd rely on the chain beneath them to hold them up.
Tribes would battle over territory, and they were doing this long before they were human beings. The vast majority of organisms compete over territory in some way. It's the way of the world. It's what species have to do to exist appropriately on earth.
The organisms are disposable, it's natural they don't feel that way because they need a strong desire to survive to be successfull, but technically they very much are disposable. The "territories" aren't disposable, they're the solid which governs everything else.
By altering the behaviour of humans, they've spilled out of this confinement, they eat up territories and spread like a plague.
Is killing a requirement of survival?
Traditionally yes, but as evidenced by humans, there's a way around it.
But our survival is actually quite pointless without the survival of the planet, we only exist to work for it. Why are we finding a way around it? Because we don't like getting hurt or killed? Duh. We don't like getting hurt or killed so we will be good at hurting and killing others. If we aren't doing that we might as well not even have an aversion to death and pain.
Killing is a requirement for the survival of the planet. Very much so. When we aren't killing eachother we're collaborating to form an unnaturally devestating force, one that competes with the planet itself. Our cities are like round welts on the surface of the planet with our mass production agriculture on the outer fringes of those welts.
We really are a disease consuming earth, I know that's far from an original concept but I fear people don't truely understand how real the concept is.
It's not a matter of whether killing is absolutely necessarry or not. Is not-killing really that important? It's actually laughably petty to avoid conflict considering the price of such comfort.
Keeping people friendly and happy and scrape free is a ridiculous goal to have at the cost of the very earth itself.
It's like being a heavy smoker and demanding that your every cigar is lit with a burning baby. Use a lighter bro, it's not that extreme of a sacrifice, considering.
It really wouldn't be that bad to live with your extended family off a piece of land which you occassionally needed to defend from rival families.
You could still build a house and do whatever your family was capable of. You could even produce alcohol.
War today, for the record, is simply the natural urges we have for conflict being satiated for arbitrary reasons we think up.
This can happen because we never really were aware of why we were fighting, lions aren't thinking about the huge list of ecological reasons they're fighting a rival pride, they're just urged to. The urges will play out in the correct way when we are living correctly.
When we aren't, they're embarrassingly misplaced.
You can imagine the fellatio you could recieve if you
incorrectly stole a newborn baby from it's mother, crafted a doll in it's mothers likeness and slipped your penis through a hole where her breast was.
It's the same principal. There's nothing wrong with a baby who wants to suckle on the breast region of a woman shaped thing, and nothing wrong with george w bush for wanting to invade and attack other countries, they're both simply out of their elements.