When someone tells me, ‘Nature is cruel and controversial—look how foxes devour hares’, I think that the problem is not the particular case of X eating Y, but that everyone eats something. Where is any controversy, if it is in fact the rule?
Also, while I agree with your general idea, you are too gentle in execution. The idea that ‘Nature’ is really, horribly accidental doesn’t come through clearly. You say only the genes matter, and it is just another reduction of the case. People will suspect that if something alive lives in some medium, than the medium must have a say in its evolution (and they might think themselves part of the medium). Try including a story where a volcanic eruption wipes out a patch of unsuspecting lichen. Drama, pointlessness, no anthropization. See if they can muster a similar degree of righteous fury:))
When someone tells me, ‘Nature is cruel and controversial—look how foxes devour hares’, I think that the problem is not the particular case of X eating Y, but that everyone eats something. Where is any controversy, if it is in fact the rule?
Also, while I agree with your general idea, you are too gentle in execution. The idea that ‘Nature’ is really, horribly accidental doesn’t come through clearly. You say only the genes matter, and it is just another reduction of the case. People will suspect that if something alive lives in some medium, than the medium must have a say in its evolution (and they might think themselves part of the medium). Try including a story where a volcanic eruption wipes out a patch of unsuspecting lichen. Drama, pointlessness, no anthropization. See if they can muster a similar degree of righteous fury:))