My thoughts are a little bit ajumble, but I'll see if they make sense if I just blurt them out here, as they are. I believe the reason we have not made the cockroach king, is because the whole concept of survival of the fittest, as you so wisely surmise and explain, is an outgrowth of religion. I used to wonder why no one in my classes asked the teachers how it is that science is suppsed to be seen as something that exists in a vacuum, when over and over, we were told that our maths, sciences, art, and music... ("our" = western culture,) grew from the work of monks and clerics, and by craftsmen being hired through "The Church*" to create depictions of religious concepts, and musical expressions of the liturgies. Furthermore, it was also stated that plenty of concepts in science, came out of other cultures and religions, especially Chinese culture and Islam. I was like a little mouse sitting at the back of class, listening, but too afraid to ask these questions, because I had learned quickly, that a truly curious mind is a liability in those formative years in western culture, where one is expected ingest the propaganda without complaint.

*(I also find it odd and perplexint that Protestant culture has been entirely stripped
of its Catholic foundations; Catholicism (at least as it exists in the USA,) stripped
of its Judaic foundations, and Judaism deemed "Other" in ways that would be
amost humorous, if it weren't so damned heartbreakingly deadly.)

Anyhow, I came to realize the concept of "science" I was being taught, was rather bizarre. It was as if, this science started at the image of the "white anglo-saxon Protestant male" and conctructed history backwards, from that abstraction. Yet, this same freakish and almost comical process, was being applied to the present and perceived future, as well!

Why do we assume the Universe is knowable by the human mind? I was told this is a precept of Christian religion. Is it also a basic precept of other religions? This I do not know. But I think it could be argued that this very foundational concept of western science, is based on a religious belief which is so completely assumed as true, we
never even see it, or question it. Christianity assumes that "The Creator" created
the Universe and then created human minds, the most excellent minds being those of
the white Christian (Protestant) male. Since this created entity is the most beloved
by the "The Creator", then we must all listen to him (the "Chosen Beloved) and follow
his directions, because HIS mind was made above all others by his loving "Creator" so he could discover his "Creator" and therefore also, all the answers to the Universe. All existence basically is understood to be for this one particular mind and body type.

Additionally, the "sovereignty by way of Created dominion" of this allegedly most
exellent creature, is most accurately articulated and expressed in the existence of the nations of North America. It is actually as if the entire Universe was created so the (white/Christian/male) North American nations could come into being. It is also there-
fore expected that all future time, will exist to perpetuate and preserve these selfsame societies. In is an idea of an "eternal perfecton" through which it is perceived that all minds, all flesh, and all that exists, will be made "good" either by existing in service to
the conceived abstraction of "perfection" or else made useful by being consumed by
that abstraction. If not useful for service or commodity, then unmercifully destroyed.
This is the basis of "the sciences" and of "progress"; yet we are taught they
somehow exist "in a vacuum" and through "secular processes", respectively.

It's a quizzical sleight of hand, for sure. I must express gratitude to Mr. Charles
Fort, whose writings delighted and inspired me as a young woman, and opened
my eyes to the massive amounts of perception and information that are simply
discarded because they do not serve the narrative. How curious a sensation,
when I began to realize that my own life, thoughts, body and perceptions were
being summarily tossed onto that old scrap-heap named "Other", and that my
decidedly loathesome existence must become in some way profitable to the
"Chosen Ones", or face extermination, be it by force or neglect.

And so, it is my experience that the term "survival of the fittest" is mostly
ever used ironically; but, because the source of the useage is so steeped in
irony at the very foundations of its own existece, the dissonance is never
noticed, nor heard. Put another way, "Which 'moral characteristics' related to
"survival" are being expressed when a biological process is placed into a closed
system, designed specifically to edify and perpetuate that process?" When we
put a fish in an aquarium designed specifically for the perpetuation of the life
of that fish, do we then look at that fish seperate from all fish, and say it is
the most excellent fish ever, because, look how "fit" it is, and how
 _well_ it survives, there in the tank, made just for that fish?) For the sake
of clarity, the fishtank in this argument is the North American white nations,
not the Universe. However, these particular fish have been gazing at their
own reflection for so long, they really believe if there's anything outside that tank,
it only exists for the perpetuation of their loving gaze, anyway.

Now, I will go watch "Part 2", and see where your thoughts went as you
were ruminating on these things! As always, thank you.