I have a strange combo of undergrad degree in a life science, and masters in finance & marketing. (it's a long story)
Animals and people are the same in that it is the survival of the fittest, in differing environments with differing 'selection pressure'
It comes down to resources. Animals that are fittest have better resources for their given environment. Resources can be in the form of territory, access to food, access to mates (harems), and also its compliment of genes. Stronger, fitter individuals have better genes, better resistance to disease, better appearance to attract mates (sexually dimorphism).
People that are fittest in our environment are more capable to amass wealth, have better health to attract mates and resist disease, have social intelligence to navigate society.
What is fittest in a given environment is not fittest in a different environment. Example, take a wall street banker and put him in war torn Somalia...
It is still a free competition, and all about resources. It's neither good nor bad, it is just the way the ecosystem (or society) has changed, and what has prevailed (be it the system or its most prevalent characters in its individuals), they exist simply because that is what has worked out best.
it is really a long way of saying, don't hate the player, hate the game.
|