scientifically speaking, this is basically garbage. it comes out of some kind of post-puritanical philosophical space that is entirely devoid of any concept of empiricism. it's what happens when a religious worldview does away with god and seeks to compensate for it somehow, and i guess there's a commonality with lingua ignota on that point. i guess if you're still grappling with these questions - which most of western civilization dealt with in the fucking enlightenment - then this kind of thing might make some sense to you. but, if you're coming at this from a fully atheistic slant then it just comes off as idiotic.
there's not an evolutionary biologist on the planet that would endorse this kind of thinking, and i'll leave it at that other than to assert the point relatively strongly - if you want to understand "human nature", if you want to pretend such a thing even exists at all, then you need to stop asking philosophers and start asking biologists. these are empirical questions that belong in the realm of science, not in the realm of religion or philosophy.
humans are primates. that means we're fundamentally co-operative, and that we have to be in order to prevent predation; we have to rely on each other to avoid getting eaten. so, if we're destructive, it's not due to our "nature" but due to the economic system we exist within. she might accidentally get that right, but that doesn't mean you should take her seriously when she argues that humans are inherently destructive creatures, because the science is pretty clear that we really aren't. we are actually the only species descended from our evolutionary common ancestor that has developed a concept of morality, and while the final biological understanding of morality is likely going to be that that it is altruistic, and therefore self-serving, that doesn't uphold the thesis that we are destructive, but rather contradicts it. we are collaborative, and we seek to build things together to maximize our own survival rates in a universe that is cold and destructive and without morals, because we have to to survive within it.
if you're insistent that you're hard-wired to self-destruct and cannibalize and destroy yourself, then the proper way to make sense of that is to conclude that you actually have broken genes at some point - that you're a genetic mutant that should be removed from the genome. you should probably just kill yourself...
...but the truth is probably closer to the reality that you're just so fucked up from your religious upbringing that you can barely understand what's happening a foot in front of your face. you may just be suffering from permanent, irreversible psychological damage as a consequence of your exposure to religion as a child.
so, take this terrible understanding of humans and separate it from us, and project it into the universe. we might not survive, in the end, but, we're still the protagonists, here - it is the universe around us that is horrible, not us.
what about the sound, though?
it's aimless. i like noise, but it has to actually go somewhere, has to do actually do something. this is pretty pointless, and pretty boring. she needs to learn to anchor herself in some kind of process if she wants to convert this into something compelling...
https://pharmakon.bandcamp.com/
