essentially you are arguing from an appeal to nature. You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.Superlol wrote:evolution makes us adapt characteristics on if it works we keep it if it dosnt we don't keep it. All our charecteristics our just that programming over millions to billions of years, just like everything else living on this planet. Your very ignorent to suggest there is no meaning while i provide evidence and you just deny it. Using what I said you can easily find out the meaning for your life and it's to fight extinction and makes us able to survive. To find the meaning you must find the opposite of survival and thats extinction. Our goal as the most powerfull being is to prevent our extinction.
Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.
Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of 'artificial' medicines such as antibiotics.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Beyond that science really doesn't tell people what is or is not moral. It has however informed us that the feelings of other species both emotional and physical are not very different from our own. Social Darwinism is a good example of extending science into the field of morality. So price equation should not be a justification to kill anymore than the antiquated "survival of the fittest" should be used to justify economic exploitation. (yes don't everyone pounce on me for survival of the fittest I know it is not an accurate representation of how evolution works)