Why I detest spirituality and only see the world through a lens of nature.

[lwlaiet8887]

Personally, I don't see the nature of the world as spiritual at all it's purely nature. Many people will embellish the virtues of humanity to make us seem larger than life, but if you look at humanity from an objective standpoint you realize we're no better than animals, we're simply a force of nature with higher cognition and thrice the brutality. Spiritually inclined people will argue that struggling or the innate sin is what gives us soul, so I suppose we're like a morbid art exhibition and the mass suffering of individuals is justified as long as there's some higher power behind it. You ever think about all of the innocent souls in this world who cry out for God in agony yet he never responds? Or do we only see things from a perspective of survivorship bias and acknowledge the winners who managed to overcome their hardship like most sheeple do (what about xyz)? That's what you're arguing if you see the world as spiritual in my eyes.

On the topic of humanity, what do I think is most defining about humanity is our sheer brutality. Human history is defined by divisiveness and exploitation even in the modern day when we're supposedly enlightened. Animals kill out of survival instinct, man inflicts violence out of malice and the desire take. What makes us superior to this nature? Why does humanity deserve salvation when we're the truly evil one's who have brought about the destruction of this earth, the mass murder/torment of one another, an industrial genocide of animals to sustain us, destructive ideology, evil individuals. Man is the bastard of this world and earth is the closest thing to hell we know of. Man is not all evil though, there's good hearted people in the world with kind souls who suffer unjustly. I just don't remotely see a world with senseless suffering as remotely spiritual, it's just like the tides of nature, survival of the fittest.


(I wrote this in another thread but wanted to leave it behind in the philosophy thread to archive it)

 

[Pluto]

Early societies tended towards nature-worshipping spiritual outlooks (for example, native American or Aboriginal Australian) and as a result, were vastly more respectful towards nature. Not only is this a far gentler philosophy, but it is also much more practical; Aborigines have a history dating back around 60,000 years with minimal change, yet in 235 years since European colonisation, we've decimated much of the natural world and initiated a mass extinction affecting much of the animal kingdom. What's worse, to this day, most people don't even see a problem and are irritated by any narrative beyond business-as-usual.

The primary reason that more aggressive philosophies (Christianity, capitalism, etc.) have proliferated is because mass violence is a more powerful force than the sensitive and thoughtful mindset that drove early civilisations. Sickness and dysfunction have been proliferated by force, including brainwashing children to normalise utter insanity.

What I would call 'real spirituality' is a completely different beast. It is based around the notion that suffering is unavoidable in conventional life, yet there is a way out of it that entails a radical shift in identity along the lines of permanent, irreversible ego death. A belief, or an openness, to this possibility is a prerequisite to initiate the process, but then beliefs and other ego identity structures become the very thing that must be removed in order to realise that state. It is a tragedy of circumstance that the result is difficult if not impossible to verbalise, hence the uninitiated will always dismiss the whole notion as a mere religious belief or a psychedelic experience.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I guess I want to point out that spirituality does not have to come from theology. Spirituality is a state of mind, a sense of purpose, or essentially some form of acceptance and peace. From a more cynical point of view, I suppose it could be said to be a state of ultimate delusion. It does not have to come from any kind of belief in something beyond nature. You can internally make peace with the fact that there is nothing special about humanity, that there is no purpose in the world, that everything is absolutely terrible - absurdism exists as a valid path to spirituality, to my understanding.


The thing that I would consider unique about humanity is our experience of suffering and not our ability to destroy or take.

Sure, we have made a massive change to the environment of the earth, wiped out countless species, and inflict endless torment upon ourselves, but we're not particularly unique in that. Other species capable of mass propagation, such as ants, invented war and pointless death on a mass scale long before we even existed. Natural disasters ranging from earthquakes, volcanoes, to asteroids have made far more destructive impacts on the planet than we have. In a few billion years, the entire planet will be gone, swallowed by the expanding sun at the center of the solar system.

Of all the forces on earth which can cause suffering, only humans have branded themselves as evil and sinful. All because we have a sense of control - a sense of responsibility and agency. Because we have the ability to choose, all our actions must then be deliberate. Suffering is therefore inflicted with intent and thus necessarily evil.

Fundamental to the idea of evil is free will. Evil can only exist if there is the ability to not be evil. After all, we do not brand ants evil for slaughtering its kin nor the asteroid malicious when it obliterates most life on earth. They are simply acting according to nature.

I will not comment on whether or not we do have free will here. But if you brand humanity as evil, then you must necessarily believe we have free will and the agency to do evil, which is not something nature is capable of. Thus, inherent to the belief in the idea of evil existing within humanity is the belief in a separation of humanity from nature. If you do not wish to believe humanity to be superior or separate from nature, then it would be nonsensical to believe humanity to be any more evil than a natural disaster or predatory animal.


That makes any belief in the idea of evil inherently spiritual. Justice and morality, too, are concepts rooted in a belief of humans being supernatural.

As condescending as this is of me to point out, your beliefs as presented here are therefore inherently contradictory. Everything cannot simultaneously be purely nature while evil exists.

So why does evil exist in our minds then?

I would say it's because of our profound experience of suffering.

Because it's so powerful, so all encompassing, we feel there must be purpose to it.

We look for something to explain it, something to blame it on.

Thus is born the very basis of all spirituality. That which seeks to explain why we suffer.

Ironically, I think that makes your belief in the world being purely nature spiritual.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

I guess I want to point out that spirituality does not have to come from theology. Spirituality is a state of mind, a sense of purpose, or essentially some form of acceptance and peace. From a more cynical point of view, I suppose it could be said to be a state of ultimate delusion. It does not have to come from any kind of belief in something beyond nature. You can internally make peace with the fact that there is nothing special about humanity, that there is no purpose in the world, that everything is absolutely terrible - absurdism exists as a valid path to spirituality, to my understanding.


The thing that I would consider unique about humanity is our experience of suffering and not our ability to destroy or take.

Sure, we have made a massive change to the environment of the earth, wiped out countless species, and inflict endless torment upon ourselves, but we're not particularly unique in that. Other species capable of mass propagation, such as ants, invented war and pointless death on a mass scale long before we even existed. Natural disasters ranging from earthquakes, volcanoes, to asteroids have made far more destructive impacts on the planet than we have. In a few billion years, the entire planet will be gone, swallowed by the expanding sun at the center of the solar system.

Of all the forces on earth which can cause suffering, only humans have branded themselves as evil and sinful. All because we have a sense of control - a sense of responsibility and agency. Because we have the ability to choose, all our actions must then be deliberate. Suffering is therefore inflicted with intent and thus necessarily evil.

Fundamental to the idea of evil is free will. Evil can only exist if there is the ability to not be evil. After all, we do not brand ants evil for slaughtering its kin nor the asteroid malicious when it obliterates most life on earth. They are simply acting according to nature.

I will not comment on whether or not we do have free will here. But if you brand humanity as evil, then you must necessarily believe we have free will and the agency to do evil, which is not something nature is capable of. Thus, inherent to the belief in the idea of evil existing within humanity is the belief in a separation of humanity from nature. If you do not wish to believe humanity to be superior or separate from nature, then it would be nonsensical to believe humanity to be any more evil than a natural disaster or predatory animal.

The difference is ants aren't sentient and don't know the cost of their violence, the same as any other dangerous natural phenomenon. Imagine ants were sentient and they carried out their lives as they did, then they would be in the same peril as humanity when it comes to suffering. I believe humanity is evil in the extent that we propagate suffering on a conscious and dramatic level. I see humanity as a branch of sentient nature, I also don't see any value in pointless suffering.

Early societies tended towards nature-worshipping spiritual outlooks (for example, native American or Aboriginal Australian) and as a result, were vastly more respectful towards nature. Not only is this a far gentler philosophy, but it is also much more practical; Aborigines have a history dating back around 60,000 years with minimal change, yet in 235 years since European colonisation, we've decimated much of the natural world and initiated a mass extinction affecting much of the animal kingdom. What's worse, to this day, most people don't even see a problem and are irritated by any narrative beyond business-as-usual.

The primary reason that more aggressive philosophies (Christianity, capitalism, etc.) have proliferated is because mass violence is a more powerful force than the sensitive and thoughtful mindset that drove early civilisations. Sickness and dysfunction have been proliferated by force, including brainwashing children to normalise utter insanity.

What I would call 'real spirituality' is a completely different beast. It is based around the notion that suffering is unavoidable in conventional life, yet there is a way out of it that entails a radical shift in identity along the lines of permanent, irreversible ego death. A belief, or an openness, to this possibility is a prerequisite to initiate the process, but then beliefs and other ego identity structures become the very thing that must be removed in order to realise that state. It is a tragedy of circumstance that the result is difficult if not impossible to verbalise, hence the uninitiated will always dismiss the whole notion as a mere religious belief or a psychedelic experience.

Early societies tended towards nature-worshipping spiritual outlooks (for example, native American or Aboriginal Australian) and as a result, were vastly more respectful towards nature. Not only is this a far gentler philosophy, but it is also much more practical; Aborigines have a history dating back around 60,000 years with minimal change, yet in 235 years since European colonisation, we've decimated much of the natural world and initiated a mass extinction affecting much of the animal kingdom. What's worse, to this day, most people don't even see a problem and are irritated by any narrative beyond business-as-usual.

The primary reason that more aggressive philosophies (Christianity, capitalism, etc.) have proliferated is because mass violence is a more powerful force than the sensitive and thoughtful mindset that drove early civilisations. Sickness and dysfunction have been proliferated by force, including brainwashing children to normalise utter insanity.

What I would call 'real spirituality' is a completely different beast. It is based around the notion that suffering is unavoidable in conventional life, yet there is a way out of it that entails a radical shift in identity along the lines of permanent, irreversible ego death. A belief, or an openness, to this possibility is a prerequisite to initiate the process, but then beliefs and other ego identity structures become the very thing that must be removed in order to realise that state. It is a tragedy of circumstance that the result is difficult if not impossible to verbalise, hence the uninitiated will always dismiss the whole notion as a mere religious belief or a psychedelic experience.

I don't disagree with a spiritual mindset but any order of spirituality I see as a falsehood. Although, that doesn't mean it has no value socially.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

The difference is ants aren't sentient and don't know the cost of their violence, the same as any other dangerous natural phenomenon. Imagine ants were sentient and they carried out their lives as they did, then they would be in the same peril as humanity when it comes to suffering. I believe humanity is evil in the extent that we propagate suffering on a conscious and dramatic level. I see humanity as a branch of sentient nature, I also don't see any value in pointless suffering.

So sentience, something that is above anything nature is capable of, makes humanity evil?

We choose to be evil and therefore are evil.

The ant cannot choose, nor can the asteroid. That much is obvious to both you and I.

Humans, who can choose, must therefore be superior, or at least separate, to the ant and the asteroid - or nature - according to your own words.

I'm saying that humanity cannot simultaneously be evil and a part of nature. Nature cannot be evil. If humanity is a part of nature, then it cannot be evil.


I will also point out that the idea of "value" itself is spiritual. As is the idea of "pointlessness".


I guess properly explaining ideas through this asynchronous form of communication through a forum format is pretty tough. Feel free to start a chat if I'm, like, incomprehensible here.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

So sentience, something that is above anything nature is capable of, makes humanity evil?

We choose to be evil and therefore are evil.

The ant cannot choose, nor can the asteroid. That much is obvious to both you and I.

Humans, who can choose, must therefore be superior, or at least separate, to the ant and the asteroid - or nature - according to your own words.


I will also point out that the idea of "value" itself is spiritual. As is the idea of "pointlessness".

"Superior"? In what sense, I don't think there's anything superior about propagating suffering on a higher and conscious level. I don't think there's any real virtue in suffering and the argument in favour of that is complete survivorship bias. I said humans are in line with a concusiousness form of nature, the same as if ants had hypothetically had sentience. Man is an animal who can perpuate suffering on a conscious and dramatic level making them evil. We're nature in the sense that we're apart of the game of survival not above it nor are we more worthy of spiritual salvation then say an animal. Mammals feel love towards eachother, they suffer, what makes humanity deserving of salvation over them? I ultimately don't see anything virtuous of humanity that makes us deserving of salvation or as spiritual beings like a religious person would believe.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

"Superior"? In what sense, I don't think there's anything superior about propagating suffering on a higher and conscious level. I don't think there's any real virtue in suffering and the argument in favour of that is complete survivorship bias. I said humans are in line with a concusiousness form of nature, the same as if ants had hypothetically had sentience. Man is an animal who can perpuate suffering on a conscious and dramatic level making them evil. We're nature in the sense that we're apart of the game of survival not above it nor are we more worthy of spiritual salvation then say an animal. Mammals feel love towards eachother, they suffer, what makes humanity deserving of salvation over them? I ultimately don't see anything virtuous of humanity that makes us deserving of salvation or as spiritual beings like a religious person would believe.

Once again, that's not at all what I'm saying. Never did I ever say that humanity is more virtuous because we are capable of suffering. Simply that we ARE capable of more profound suffering.

I'm pointing out that your beliefs are inherently contradictory.

The only thing I'm saying is that humanity cannot simultaneously be evil and part of nature. Nature is not evil. Humanity cannot be evil if it is a part of nature. We are not MORE evil than any animal nor MORE deserving of salvation.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

Once again, that's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm pointing out that your beliefs are inherently contradictory.

The only thing I'm saying is that humanity cannot simultaneously be evil and part of nature. Nature is not evil. Humanity cannot be evil if it is a part of nature. We are not MORE evil than any animal nor MORE deserving of salvation.

I said we're a concusious form of nature and are remiscient of the harsh survival of nature. If animals were conscious than they'd likely be as evil as man and carry out the same violent actions as man. We're evil in the sense of our capacity for destruction and the concusiousness behind it. I don't believe in spiritual or virtuos sense for man to be better than nature especially not just because we "suffer". We're simply animals with more cognition. Also, by nature I also mean a naturalistic understanding of the world, that of an atheist for example. We're on the same basis as nature in that we fight for survival, but we're significantly more destructive and concusious in our means.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I said we're a concusious form of nature and are remiscient of the harsh survival of nature. If animals were conscious than they'd likely be as evil as man. We're evil in the sense of our capacity for destruction and the concusiousness behind it. I don't believe in spiritual or virtuos sense for man to be better than nature especially not just because we "suffer". We're simply animals with more cognition. Also, by nature I also mean a naturalistic understanding of the world, that of an atheist for example. We're on the same basis as nature in that we fight for survival, but we're significantly more destructive and concusious in our means.

Are we significantly more destructive than nature? That seems to be a spiritual self evaluation at best, to me.

Climate change and extinctions are all things which nature is far more capable of than we are.

Does consciousness grant us free will? Or are we simply observers, following the deterministic laws of physics?

I said we're a concusious form of nature and are remiscient of the harsh survival of nature. If animals were conscious than they'd likely be as evil as man and carry out the same violent actions as man. We're evil in the sense of our capacity for destruction and the concusiousness behind it. I don't believe in spiritual or virtuos sense for man to be better than nature especially not just because we "suffer". We're simply animals with more cognition. Also, by nature I also mean a naturalistic understanding of the world, that of an atheist for example. We're on the same basis as nature in that we fight for survival, but we're significantly more destructive and concusious in our means.

You're essentially saying that humans have responsibility because we have consciousness.

But why do we have responsibility when nature doesn't? That seems to put us pretty separate from nature.

 

[NumbItAll]

I just find it all to be utterly useless. The term "soul" means nothing to me for example (unless used in a colloquial sense). The way people push spirituality reminds me of religion in that it is ostensibly super important, but I really have no idea what they are talking about and I feel nothing at all. The universe is just a random pile of shit with no greater meaning behind it (at least that I can perceive). But then again I am literally the Grinch so take that for what it's worth.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

Are we significantly more destructive than nature? That seems to be a spiritual self evaluation at best, to me.

Climate change and extinctions are all things which nature is far more capable of than we are.

Does consciousness grant us free will? Or are we simply observers, following the deterministic laws of physics?


You're essentially saying that humans have responsibility because we have consciousness.

But why do we have responsibility when nature doesn't? That seems to put us pretty separate from nature.

Seems like a bunch of what aboutisms. We're more destructive than nature to ourselves and the environment, humanity is responsible for the mass extinction of species and global warming/pollution that could potentially and is destroying life on earth. Also to reiterate, by nature in I mean animals, life, survival. We're a force of nature with cognition/intelligence (being the key word), that's all. I have already described why I don't believe humans are spiritual/soulful/deserving of salvation as some religious people may believe and that there's no virtue in suffering, so ultimately humanity is no better if not worse than say a mammal that mourns its dead. We exist for the sole purpose of existence.

There's no "Responsibility" of anything. We have free will and that doesn't stop man from being evil and destructive on a conscious and higher level. Animals don't have the capacity for evil in their actions they thrive on instinct, but man has concusiousness and we're significantly worse. The reason I mention animals specifically because we're reminiscent of them greatly and we're both subject to the need for survival and suffering. There's no denying that man is simply just an animal

I just find it all to be utterly useless. The term "soul" means nothing to me for example (unless used in a colloquial sense). The way people push spirituality reminds me of religion in that it is ostensibly super important, but I really have no idea what they are talking about and I feel nothing at all. The universe is just a random pile of shit with no greater meaning behind it (at least that I can perceive). But then again I am literally the Grinch so take that for what it's worth.

That's what I believe. We're experiencing of a fountain of concusiousness and absurdidm. All that matters in the world is the superficial there's no soul although I greatly wish there was. Imagine your soul as physical being, how beautiful would that be?

 

[SexyIncél]

Personally, I don't see the nature of the world as spiritual at all it's purely nature. Many people will embellish the virtues of humanity to make us seem larger than life, but if you look at humanity from an objective standpoint you realize we're no better than animals, we're simply a force of nature with higher cognition and thrice the brutality. Spiritually inclined people will argue that struggling or the innate sin is what gives us soul, so I suppose we're like a morbid art exhibition and the mass suffering of individuals is justified as long as there's some higher power behind it.

Yeah, avoiding this brutishness is why some spiritual teachers emphasize the moral commitments:

More seriously, such free-floating meditation is ripe for subversion to whatever political or economic ends its proponents prefer. It easily absorbs the values of the most unsavory elements of our culture. Worse, many meditators, thinking they are practicing the essence of the dharma, remain completely ignorant of the ideological commitments that might come to underpin the meditation they practice. In our society, this is likely to be a ruthless individualism congenial to both the market and state.

To compensate for this, meditation in the West grounds itself in a mélange of self-indulgence and gesture politics masquerading as compassion—a "compassion," it must be said, that cannot see beyond self-regard. The result is the same vapid posturing that dominates so much of contemporary culture.

If current trends continue, meditation will become a mere app for stress-free living. In other words, it will simply come to accommodate the harmful consumption-driven lifestyles that still characterize much of life in wealthy Western countries. In such a scenario meditation would serve as a reinforcing agent to stabilize delusion.

Among friends, some are "spiritual" non-Christians who point to symbols or non-rational beliefs to demonstrate it. They're often psychopathic, or close to it

I think most spirituality refers to the cognitive changes when we link into group minds. This is hard to see, because philosophical traditions start out with two properties that are gradually lost: their arguments are in the form of conversations, and they're about practice not just reflection

Sometimes people postulate metahumans (for example, gods), who are waaay more reliable than humans. And you may be able link to them via communication, even if one-way (prayer). Like Gödel, who tried to prove the existence of a god with the pure property of positivity — without negativity

Guess his god hangs out in the recovery section

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Seems like a bunch of what aboutisms. We're more destructive than nature to ourselves and the environment, humanity is responsible for the mass extinction of species and global warming/pollution that could potentially and is destroying life on earth. Also to reiterate, by nature in I mean animals, life, survival. We're a force of nature with cognition/intelligence (being the key word), that's all. I have already described why I don't believe humans are spiritual/soulful/deserving of salvation as some religious people may believe and that there's no virtue in suffering, so ultimately humanity is no better if not worse than say a mammal that mourns its dead. We exist for the sole purpose of existence.

There's no "Responsibility" of anything. We have free will and that doesn't stop man from being evil and destructive on a conscious and higher level. Animals don't have the capacity for evil in their actions they thrive on instinct, but man has concusiousness and we're significantly worse. The reason I mention animals specifically because we're reminiscent of them greatly and we're both subject to the need for survival and suffering. There's no denying that man is simply just an animal

Wait hold on, you believe in free will, which humans have and animals don't, and simultaneously refuse to believe humans are superior to animals?

(to be clear, I also believe humans are part of nature and not superior to animals - I just don't believe in free will)

You're also misunderstanding again. Free will DOES make humans evil. Without free will, humans could not be evil. We literally agree on this.

The problem I have with what you're saying is that you say you don't have spiritual beliefs when you believe in free will, which is a spiritual concept. It necessarily requires something like a soul or other construct beyond the physical world because the physical world is deterministic or "random" for quantum mechanics.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

Wait hold on, you believe in free will, which humans have and animals don't, and simultaneously refuse to believe humans are superior to animals?

(to be clear, I also believe humans are part of nature and not superior to animals - I just don't believe in free will)

You're also misunderstanding again. Free will DOES make humans evil. Without free will, humans could not be evil. We literally agree on this.

The problem I have with what you're saying is that you say you don't have spiritual beliefs when you believe in free will, which is a spiritual concept. It necessarily requires something like a soul or other construct beyond the physical world because the physical world is deterministic or "random" for quantum mechanics.

I don't believe freewill is a spiritual concept at all (even if everything is deterministic/innate that doesn't stop the actions of humanity from causing mass suffering). Agree to disagree anyway. My point is that human suffering isn't unique and the violence of humanity is so abhorrent that we're not worthy of any spirituality, especially not in the sense of salvation or being a higher being. We have the capacity for empathy unlike animals yet we commit abhorrent acts against one another and the world. The comparison to nature is the acknowledgement that we're a facet of highly intelligent nature and that animals also suffer greatly like us and have the capacity for great empathy too, yet it's not widely acknowledged that they have no salvation and are humans are seen as superior due to our higher intelligence. To me this is more than enough proof that man is just an animal with higher intelligence.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I don't believe freewill is a spiritual concept at all (even if everything is deterministic/innate that doesn't stop the actions of humanity from causing mass suffering). Agree to disagree anyway. My point is that human suffering isn't unique and the violence of humanity is so abhorrent that we're not worthy of any spirituality, especially not in the sense of salvation or being a higher being. We have the capacity for empathy unlike animals yet we commit abhorrent acts against one another and the world. The comparison to nature is the acknowledgement that we're a facet of highly intelligent nature and that animals also suffer greatly like us and have the capacity for great empathy too, yet it's not widely acknowledged that they have no salvation and are humans are seen as superior due to our higher intelligence. To me this is more than enough proof that man is just an animal with higher intelligence.

I guess I just don't understand how you can think humans are just animals with higher intelligence and that alone somehow gives us free will.

Like, are you saying free will just turns on at some point on the intelligence scale?

For the record, I also believe humans are just animals with higher intelligence - therefore we do not have free will, just like any other animal.

Therefore, I also think it's absurd to say humans are evil, because at the end of the day our awareness does not give us control or agency, just the ability to suffer.

I would also point out, if we're animals + free will, doesn't that explicitly make humans superior by definition? Unless you mean animals also have free will.

 

[sserafim]

I believe that humans have the illusion of free will. I think that things are mostly predestined and predetermined, people just think that they're making their own choices and have the ability to do what they want

 

[Forever Sleep]

I agree with a lot of your points. However, sometimes I wonder if we have an overly romanticised view of the natural world. Absolutely- we are the most destructive species on this planet. We have the selfishness and spitefuless and tools to do it. However- I don't think other animals are always the harmonious beings we portray them. I think- if any species met with the right conditions to dominate- including by force- it would. Other animals can be destructive and sadistic. Some don't just hunt because they are hungry. Some do it for sport- cats, killer whales, monkeys.

I don't think creatures exist in a harmonious balance with their environment always from conscious choice. I just think things like food and water shortage, disease etc. keeps their populations in check. It's only that we've found ways to circumvent those limitations.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE the natural world and I think we are a terrible blight on it. That said- I think only a small fraction of it is harmonious and symbiotic. I'd say the majority of it is a dog eat dog, tooth, nail and claw fight for survival.

 

[cosifantutti]

On the whole I agree with the OP.

I'm not sure I believe in God anymore. But who knows; maybe God created a beautiful natural world full of creatures and waters and forests etc. Then the devil came along and created man.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I agree with a lot of your points. However, sometimes I wonder if we have an overly romanticised view of the natural world. Absolutely- we are the most destructive species on this planet. We have the selfishness and spitefuless and tools to do it. However- I don't think other animals are always the harmonious beings we portray them. I think- if any species met with the right conditions to dominate- including by force- it would. Other animals can be destructive and sadistic. Some don't just hunt because they are hungry. Some do it for sport- cats, killer whales, monkeys.

I don't think creatures exist in a harmonious balance with their environment always from conscious choice. I just think things like food and water shortage, disease etc. keeps their populations in check. It's only that we've found ways to circumvent those limitations.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE the natural world and I think we are a terrible blight on it. That said- I think only a small fraction of it is harmonious and symbiotic. I'd say the majority of it is a dog eat dog, tooth, nail and claw fight for survival.

Only a few animals could be said to be capable of empathy reminiscent of humans'. Orcas will toss seal pups 60 feet in the air for fun. Chimpanzees will rip monkeys and each other apart. Even elephants will stomp on other creatures.

Seems cruelty is just an inherent attribute of higher cognition. I hope it is that Earth is just an anomaly but I feel I am wrong. We'll see if and when the aliens get here.

Though if we had diverged from orangutans last rather than chimpanzees we would probably be nicer.

Ultimately, as far as the natural world is concerned, which is the world that humans evolved in and to whose laws they are still subject, suffering is a concept of zero significance.