Existence

There is a saying that the character is only as smart as his writer and sadly this proves it. I have read and made reviews for many pretentious, pseudo-philosophical pieces of fiction, but this honestly takes the top as the worst in terms of morals. This whole manhwa is made on a wrong assumption. It is made on a foundation of hate. Even the most nihilistic philosophers like Nietzsche didn't write from such a position. In short, it is made from the premise of an eco-terrorist activist. This might not mean much, but it explains everything that happens in the manhwa. Many debate how lifeshould be held, whether it has any point or not... But those are human perspectives. From a biological standpoint, humanity shares the same base as every organism. We exist to spread and then die so that the new generations have a chance to spread. It's that simple. Even if we take out discussions about morality, about religion, about rights and liberties, about laws and nature... Humans, just like every other being, exist to breed and die. This isn't debatable. The way an organism evolves is to maximize it's chances at breeding. Some animals do it through a long lifespan like the turtle or the Greenland sharks and other animals like moths and many insects through short breeding cycles with instant death. It doesn't matter the way it is done. Biology prioritizes results. Biology wants to succeed. That is why mutations disadvantageous to this process are shed. Disabled animals die at birth usually so we see it rarely, but it happens as much as in humans. From the most fundamental standpoint about life, humans aren't anything special. Every being tries to dominate it's environment. Animals and bugs don't respect other animals or trees. Every symbiotic relationship is purely transactional. This was a very long monologue, but it has a meaning. What I am trying to say is that humanity is not inherently evil. There is nothing evil about humanity. Yes, because of sentience we are aware of the world around us. We used this ability to shape it to our benefit. Humans killed animals, changed environments and now recently invented structures that wouldn't exist in nature. Nothing of this is evil. The point that the author is trying to make is that humanity became a force of corruption over the Earth due to the industrialization. That pollution is destroying the natural balance of the world. That the earth is naturally pure and we are some disease. He's trying to say that the changes in our environment, the storms, hurricanes.... That these are cries of a dieing world. How is this the perspective of a sane man? Uneducated folk like the team behind this aren't aware that natural disasters are well... Natural. These earthquakes and storms do happen often because of the pollution humanity did, but it isn't something "made" by humanity. What we did was raise the medium temperature of the planet. Uneducated people would never be aware that our planet naturally goes through cycles of freezing and heating once every few thousand years. What they don't understand is that we are not capable of destroying the planet through simple gas. What we are doing is quickening the cycle of heat and freeze. This will in no way destroy the planet. With that out of the way, I can actually talk about the story at hand and not the politics of the author. Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Lee... Idk let's just say MC, is an organism that reincarnated for 3.5 mld years. He experienced every life possible and now a human. His first instinct as a sentient being was that humans are evil and that they need to die. Why? He says that we are cruel things that kill animals and plants. He has 180° turns in this philosophy once every chapter. If whether to let humanity go or to "take revenge". I ask the audience. What did human do wrong? We followed our natural instincts to spread. Sometimes we do kill more than we need, but don't normal animals also do that? Lions frequently kill hyena babies just because they dislike the competition. They go to mothers, scare them off and then paralyze the baby in front of them. Then they go away. They don't even eat hyenas. Not if they aren't starving. Orcas frequently delight in hunting seals. Not in eating them but in hunting them. They adore the act of hunting. Male dolphins are known to attack and kill baby dolphins, including their own species and even baby porpoises. Dolphins have been observed attacking other animals, such as porpoises and baby sharks, without any apparent intention to eat them. Are any of these animals evil? No. I wouldn't say so. Then why are humans seen differently? Of course, from our perspective we can make the assumption that we have the ability to differentiate morals, but MC is a being that literally lived through the perspective of the animals above. This means that it is guaranteed to have done all of the "evil" acts that I listed. Yet he hates humanity? Only humanity? This is what I was saying in the first sentence that a character can only be as smart as the author. Furthermore, this is from the assumption that humans aren't a natural part of.... Well nature. Realistically, why would there be any reason for this immortal being to see humans as anything different than other successful species in the past? If death is natural in the living world and such a being is desensitized to death, then why does it matter if a human kills? Why does it only matter when a human does it? In the body of a child, he didn't understand why his mother cared so much about him. But how is a mother caring for her son inherently human? How is THIS the thing that changes him? Sure, by and large animal mothers prioritize their own safety over their children, but we also have many examples of crocodile mother's or other animals sacrificing themselves for their spawn. It is impossible for a being that lived through every possible life to not have failed this before. This is yet another example of an author not being smart enough to write his own character. The problem is that the author is trying to make this perspective that the being wants to destroy humanity but hesitates because of the love he shared with some of the humans. Leaving aside the moronic reason for him wanting to destroy humanity, it also goes in the other way. Why would he be impressed with them? Supposedly he has some sort of hate for this one species in particular And wants to eradicate it. Why would he hesitate? How is human love Any different than animal love? When it was in established that he can telepathically communicate with any animal.... This may be explained in a further chapter but I don't think so. Later in the story his anthithesis is introduced. What better comparison for being that has the ability of every living organism then of being that can control every living organism. Or so the author thought. It is idiotic from the first page where it is introduced, when it was said that the second being had an aura of “hating humanity" like huh? This second being was a hydra. A non sentient microscopic organism. Why would it hate humanity? Because they experimented on it? Seriously? This would work in a setting that the second being was some kind of alien and it hated humanity from its nature, but the way it was implemented was horrible. Truly speaking, a hivemind would be unstoppable. The fact that they made it vulnerable because of a central host is contrived. It's just an excuse to beat it in the end. Why would this being hate humanity any more than other beings that would feed on it? Would a bird continuously biting its body and returning when it is hungry be any less gruesome? When plants were established to feel pain? This is exactly what happens when deer feed on grass or other herbivores on trees. So now every animal is evil? This is yet another failing of the author. I could comment on the story folder but it just goes downwards and downwards in quality. Instead I'll make a different statement. These days there are many ecoterrorists that understand what humanity does wrong to the environment. Do any of them understand what humanity does good? As I have explained, humanity is not the only species that hunts just for the enjoyment month of hunting, nor the only species that changes its environment to better suit it, not the only species that practices cruelty. As I have explained humans aren't apart from nature, they are part of it. Now I will explain the things that only humans do and not any other sentient creature. Humans are the only beings that keep their weak around. As I said earlier disabled animals are culled. Bird mothers throw their weak spawn out of the nest. Many other animals eat them…. Instead humanity keeps their disabled around. Unlike any other animal, we believe in a right to life. No animal without arms or legs or without it's full cerebral capacity would survive. Another thing that humans do is charity. Animals don't help animals in need. Lions would not help other felines in hunting. No animal does things for free. Charity isn't the rule for all humans because not all humans encompass moral values, but just the fact that there is a minority that does differentiates us from animals. What many activists don't understand is that extinctions are common in nature. A lot of species die and appear. It's not inherently evil that species die because humans thrive. In nature all species that can't adapt die. The fact that a minority of humanity would go out of their way to preserve endangered species is something that an apex being would never do. The author thinks that violence is something inherently human, but one only has to look at ants to see how nature fights. Ants of the same species, but of different colonies regularly fight against each other for territory. There is no intelligence involved. No sentience. War and hence violence is a natural part of the world. Why would a being that supposedly lived through every life possible not recognize that? It's the same because I liked the art style very much but I am disgusted the more I read. How can someone have such misplaced hate? Edit//// Wow.... I read the rest of the manhwa and I can't believe it. It goes sooooooo bad. I had to bring the score down a point to 1. I really can't believe it. I genuinely think that this is the single worst manhwa that I read, right next to rooftop swordmaster for which I won't even make a review. I won't comment on the exact events, but the way the existence thinks of humans is absurd. Not even the worst redditors or twitter users are this delusional about humanity... It's just.... Wow.... Both MC and the girl are abhorrent beings that make 180° moves in their philosophy constantly at the expense of other's lives Reflecting on the fact that it shouldn't bother you when humans hurt the ones you love when you also hurt them is meaningless when you continue to hurt others yet still blame humans for their supposed "evil" nature. They constantly die and resurrect each other... And have this forced love between them... I just... Wow... I can't, I'm honestly bewildered by how bad it is. It would be one thing if this was a fighting comic like rooftop swordmaster. In that I can at least accept that the entire point was to villainize bullies and to hurt them from the perspective of the "loser", but this? MC was already a god. The only reason his mother died is because he is a dumbass and killed someone. It was contrived that the detective prioritized killing the mother, but nevertheless it was the MC's fault it even got to that point. If you want a moralist work of fiction, then you have to earn the title. You can't indulge into sin and say you are a sinner. It is outright deplorable to present the MC as in the right over all his crimes. Some may say that he isn't presented as such, but it is a lie. At some point he explains to the female main character all his crimes and she "can't say that he was wrong". For real??!!??? I'm seriously astounded by this contrivance. I know I am venting right now, but this is seriously the first work of fiction where I had to pause and lay on my bed thinking about how deplorable a world view is. When I read the prince of thorns by Mark Lawrence I knew how bad the main character was, but I knew that the author obviously wasn't such a monster in real life. But this? This work is just believable enough to think that the author would act in this manner of he had the same powers in real life. I don't know who wrote this personality. I didn't check any of their other works to judge them thoroughly, but I can still criticize this. You can't have your work take itself this seriously if the morals are this bad. I'm not joking when I say that the main character is one of the biggest villains in fiction, but the story bends in a way a street him as in the right. And the moral he learns in the end? That "it's just life". Seriously? My my....