Why do living organisms inherently kill each other?

why do living organisms inherently kill each other?

is the next step for intelligent life to exist without killing?

americans are being killed by the rest of the world gaining intelligence

for energy, and presumably not, even if we invent something that can put pure energy into us it'll probably have loads of shitty side effects

it seems ironic for 'life' as a concept to exist with killing other living organisms as a fundamental basis, unless you look at life as a result of chemical reactions taking place under the physical constraints of the universe.

wouldn't this downplay any relevancy of consciousness as being anything other than chemical reactions?

is it safe to assume that consciousness is just an axiom that we will never be able to understand?

I suppose it could be that way if we lived forever, but since we die anyway our energy will be recycled eventually regardless of how or when it happens
as far as the universe is concerned, dying of old age and being decomposed by microorganisms is fundamentally equal to getting torn to shreds and eaten by a bear

A better question that isn't so loaded would be why do organisms kill each other? Simple answer is they usually do it to obtain resources in order to live. In situations where supply is unlimited compared to demand you don't experience organisms killing each other. For example early colonization of a new island: there's plenty of space, sunlight, and nutrients for new photoautotrophs to colonize and you aren't going to find anything killing each other. The problem is that with reproduction you tend to result in overpopulation and things need to compete or find new niches to adapt to. Competing means you need to kill or be killed. Plants in overcrowded areas are going to evolve by natural selection to grow taller in order to obtain enough sunlight, unfortunately this results in shorter plants dying due to lack of sunlight in the process. Fulfilling a different niche can also result in organisms needing to kill each other. Chemoheterotrophs came about because there were alternatives to obtaining sunlight for energy, namely other photoautotrophs. This predatory relationship actually benefits both parties in a way. One gets energy directly from the other, and the other gets to experience less competition due to a smaller population. This also prevents severe crashes in population for the photoautotrophs that occur from surpassing the carrying capacity. I don't think intelligent life can exist without killing in some form considering it's one of the underlying drivers behind evolution. We'd have to be in a state of perpetual unlimited resources even with reproduction. Not to mention every organism would have to become an autotroph just to satisfy your criteria, meaning no humans, you can't be kill free if you need to consume organic matter.

>is the next step for intelligent life to exist without killing?
the opposite actually.

To extract matter from the corpse then break down that matter into material that can be used to rebuild the body and produce energy.

What are you going to consume?
Are you ok with killing plants?

A truly intelligent species would realise the only way to secure their continued existence is to preemptively kill any life out there, sentient or not.

Which is kinda why we need to diversify our living habitats ASAP, one relativistic bomb targeted at Sol III and there goes Humanity.

On a personal note, i'll cyborgise and live in the oort cloud ASAP.

Why can't they just use a relativistic bomb on the Sun to wipe out all humans even the cucks living on asteroids

Is that even possible just with a relativistic bomb ?
Don't it require antimatter shenanigans to trigger an early implosion ?

Anyway, i'd obviously make sure my cozy place would be shielded from a potential supernova.

If it end up not possible, i'll just fuck off into interstellar space and just fap to mechahentai until the heatdeath.

It's a feature of the universe itself, not life. I've come to think competition is inherent, and things whether alive or not exist in a framework wherein you may only feed or be fed upon. There is never anything else, whether you're a black hole, a sun, a microbe, or a crystalline matrix.

I suppose you can choose to see it differently by not viewing anything in a clustered or grouped sense, and thus ignoring the notion of bonding and macro objects. But even on a particle machinery level, it seems to remain.

Life might be capable of transcending this to a limited extent.

Also. Worth adding is that predation isn't thought to have even been a thing at one point. Bacterial competition was more or less based on colony structures, but they would readily share genetic material amongst each other. Then I suppose maybe life's core structures became viable enough, and got enough of a foothold, that some prick emerged who wouldn't share, didn't have to, nor would allow others to exist feeding on its resources. Mechanisms like penicillin synthesis, etc, came along to deliberately keep out other bacteria.

It's the same with humans you know. All it takes is one person, the feedback loops start, the tribal response starts, different opinions emerge, and then what was peaceful is suddenly everyone fighting. All because of one guy.

>a fundamental basi
It's not.

But once life had begon, killing other life quickly became a very effective strategy. And whatever is evolutionary beneficial tends to stick around. That's all.

Well why not?
There isn't infonite resources available.
If one species "evolutionarly" came to the conclusion of not participating in violence, while not providing for other species as form of symbiosis, then those other species will be at an advantage eating those silly suckers.

>why do living organisms inherently kill each other?
Survival
>is the next step for intelligent life to exist without killing?
Intelligent life cannot exist without consuming other life, autotrophs have no biological incentive to form brains or similar organs.

>A truly intelligent species would realise the only way to secure their continued existence
Secure whose continued existence? An abstract gene pool? A "truly intelligent" species wouldn't draw the line at arbitrary interfertility, but on universal standards what qualifies a lifeform as equal. There may be individuals who don't meet these criteria externally, but also within their own species - a term that would be completely devoid of meaning in a society that has mastered genetic engineering, anway.

Spoken like a true evolutionary deadend ;^)

competition for resources is the simple answer (other living organisms at times being these resources)

we will almost certainly never live in a post-scarcity world (but there's a small chance that we might)

People use each other.

Just fucking kill me already.

When food was scarce enough, and it often was, cannibalism ruled the day.

A post-scarcity world is impossible for the simple reason there there will be individuals seeking to reproduce regardless of the obvious outcome of war and destruction it'll bring.
I, for example, will be such an individual, and will reproduce as a locust without end until all is of me. All includes you, so you WILL be rearranged as me, willingly or not.

> why do living organisms inherently kill each other?
Because the most prevent source of energy for microbial life is other microbes, which our feral ancestors evolved from.
Maybe make it to high school before asking really dumb questions. This is more a matter of philosophy than science or math.

even stars and galaxies "kill" eachother.

its an inevitable consequence while nearing singularity.

only when there is nothing left to kill, will the killing stop.

humans can however kill the most unnecesseraly imho, animals only kill to survive, we kill to control.

to kill without existing?

it's the other animals fault by being so delicious.

Stop using symbiosis when you don't know what it means, the words you're looking for are mutualistic relationship.

I know, right? it's as if they evolved just to be eaten!

>animals only kill to survive
could you please repeat only the funny memes? this shit is embarrassing

And I thought Neo killed you, Elrond

plants kill light, H2O, CO2 and minerals

>our energy will be recycled
Just a part of it. It is limited by the thermodinamics 2nd law.

Scarcity user, even if you didn't have to kill another organism for energy you would still have to kill them via depravity for the finite resources at any given time.

So... you're saying that by matter consuming all other matter... all matter will re-coalesce into a single point or singularity once again... and then re-explode once again... into a new (or the next in a never-ending series of) universe(s). Is that right?

>is the next step for intelligent life to exist without killing?
>thinking that evolution has a goal or steps

What makes you think that this would have some evolutionary utility?. You're just projecting your sentimentality in nature.

>why do living organisms inherently kill each other?
Living things have to gather resources to stay alive. Generally, they'll want to do this in the most efficient way they can manage.

Eating a plant is more efficient than trying to photosynthesize sunlight yourself, or sucking nutrients out of the soil. It frees up energy for nice things like moving around.

Being able to hunt or farm and eat other animals gives you quick access to a lot of nutrients -- nutrients that would take a long time to farm or gather from plants.

Fighting other humans for good hunting and farming lands lets you claim those resources for yourself. Of course, there's a good bit of risk involved at this point.

>is the next step for intelligent life to exist without killing?
Why?

because a long ass time ago some microbe figured out that instead of siphoning nutrients and energy from its environment, it was a lot quicker and easier to just eat the other microbes doing that, and doing so also cut down on its competition