> Ah, the author had some mystical idea of "happiness" in mind, then, which they have no doubt defined as excluding those things they think ought not to produce it.

Are you not kind of doing the same here, assuming that the author's take is necessarily wrong and yours is not?

>> Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem?

> Sure?

What if it isn't actually though? Like, it may "work" (you do not literally die), but whether parasitism is optimal for the overall system or even yourself as an individual (if you consider things like systems theory, emergence, consciousness, etc) seems rather complicated.

> I mean, you only really get three basic roles to choose from - predator, prey, or parasite.

What about neutrality (which could be a blend of these, or something else)?

> Of course, the metaphor falls apart very quickly if you try to work with it, because the use of the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate.

a) That isn't the only reason it falls apart.

b) How do you know that "the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate", and that the phenomenon you mentioned isn't affecting you in your evaluation?