You have no definition of "strong" here other than "one who takes from others, and no definition of "weak" as "one who is taken from". That's a tautology.
> Nature is completely filled with hierarchies, where those that are stronger and more fit take resources from those are who are weaker and less fit.
The sort of understanding of "evolution" and "fitness" might do well in the circles you move in. It doesn't have much to do with reality. The "heirarchies" you insist fill nature are as much a projection of 19th century naturalists' understanding of their own societies as they are a description of actual power dynamics among other creatures.
There are huge numbers of examples of both intra-species and inter-species dynamics that do not play out in the simplistic way you're describing. Sure, there are also examples that do, but it's inaccurate to suggest them as the dominant form.
Co-evolution, overlapping resource extraction, and of course the tension between the health of a group and the health of the individuals within it are just three basic ways that complicate your strong-takes/weak-taken description.
"Co-evolution, overlapping resource extraction, and of course the tension between the health of a group and the health of the individuals within it are just three basic ways that complicate your strong-takes/weak-taken description."
Why would that possibly complicate anything? You think a cheetah making the gazelle faster over time is some sort of gotcha that changes the fact that cheetahs eat gazelles?
I can throw out some terms and claim they'll contradict you too. Dominance hierarchy, infanticide, territoriality, and reproductive fitness are just 4 basic ways that uncomplicate my strong-takes/weak-taken description.
I wasn't making a broad claim about the natural world, you were. To contradict your broad claim, I merely pointed out a couple of counter-examples that suggest something other than the heirarchy-based view you described.
If you want to contradict me, given that I'm acknowledging the presence of strong-takes-weak, but noting that it's not the whole picture, you'd need to show that actually, it is the whole picture.
> Nature is completely filled with hierarchies, where those that are stronger and more fit take resources from those are who are weaker and less fit.
The sort of understanding of "evolution" and "fitness" might do well in the circles you move in. It doesn't have much to do with reality. The "heirarchies" you insist fill nature are as much a projection of 19th century naturalists' understanding of their own societies as they are a description of actual power dynamics among other creatures.
There are huge numbers of examples of both intra-species and inter-species dynamics that do not play out in the simplistic way you're describing. Sure, there are also examples that do, but it's inaccurate to suggest them as the dominant form.
Co-evolution, overlapping resource extraction, and of course the tension between the health of a group and the health of the individuals within it are just three basic ways that complicate your strong-takes/weak-taken description.