This makes for the foundation of a nice story, but no, that's not what 'barbaric' means. It's not what you'll find in any dictionary, and it's not what the root of the word is. Barbaros, in Greek, referred to non-Greeks, with an early connotation of foreignness. It picked up a connotation of cruelty and savageness as early as the Romans. Any dictionary since then will give a primary meaning of cruelty and savagery, not just 'primitive and unsophisticated'.
(Finally, my eight years of Ancient Greek at school comes in slightly handy!)
And how would those dictionaries define savagery? Webster's first entries are "not domesticated or under human control" and "lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings" [1]. The penultimate comment works with savage and cruel substituted for primitive and unsophisticated.
(Though didn't know the etymology. An honest thank you for that.)
I mean, a good nothing-up-my-sleeve definition is the Google one: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+savagery https://www.google.com/search?q=define+savage
Respectfully, I think you're hunting down odd-one-out definitions that support your theory - not necessarily consciously. All of these words connote cruelty. The overwhelming majority of dictionary definitions bear that out.
And if that were the only claim they made, that would be fine. I just happen to dislike people dishonestly twisting facts – in this case, misrepresenting the meaning of a word by cherry-picking some recherché fringe definition and making it out to be the primary meaning – to make their argument sound more impressive.
Now try “barbaric”. Definition two: “primitive; unsophisticated” [1]. (Sorry, could not help it.)
> these words connote cruelty
Never argued it didn’t. My original comment uses the same word.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20barbaric#crs=...
Yes, definition two. I reiterate what I said before: you're searching for fringe meanings to back up your argument.
Your original comment argued that the meaning of 'barbaric' was primarily about simplicity and primitiveness, in order to argue that the phrase 'nature is barbaric' is agnostic about nature's cruelty. This makes for a neat-sounding argument, but, again, it's unfortunately just not true. The word 'barbaric' has signified cruelty as its dominant meaning ever since the Romans.
(I know it's tempting to twist the facts a little to make an elegant argument, but it's just not honest to cherry-pick secondary definitions, or anomalous definitions from minor dictionaries, and use sleight-of-hand to pretend that's the main understood meaning.)
No we don't. We generally use barbaric to describe people. Barbaric comes from barbarian. Which was originally used to describe non-greeks, non-romans, foreigners, etc. It started out as a slur. Philistine is a synonym for barbarian.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/barbarian
> Enough to have motivated our species to seek to not be subject to it.
You act like civilization was something our species strived for rather than had imposed on us. Civilization was predominantly built on slavery and exploitation. The vast majority of humanity suffered under civilization. Humanity no more clamored for civilization than livestock clamored for industrial farms.
Barbaric literally means primitive and unsophisticated. (Sophistication referring to knowledge and culture.) When we say something is barbaric, we mean it is in its natural, unrefined, untouched-by-civilisation state.
That might make the statement "nature is barbaric" seem tautologic. But your reaction exposes its meaning. The natural state of things, the barbaric state, is on we strive to escape. It is painful and suffering. Sometimes cruel. Enough to have motivated our species to seek to not be subject to it. To be free of the "natural order of things" by developing our knowledge, culture and civilization.
As you mention, this often involved killing. But killing need not be painful and cruel.