'the meaning of life' and how civilization effects the psyche

I hate it when people ask 'what is the meaning of life?' By implying that our existence on Earth must have a reason, this question makes the assumption that we have to validate our existence, that the reality of life itself isn't a suitable goal and that the ultimate validation of our existence is some abstract concept. People try to find 'the meaning of life' because they think it will be the ultimate accomplishment, the ultimate means to fulfillment. And this betrays the fact that the vast majority of individuals in our culture are living unsatisfying lives. What is more, people seem to take it for granted that they are destined for lives during which they must compromise happiness for survival and emotional well being for physical safety and security. This is incredibly tragic.
The idea that one must look for something to validate their existence reveals how deeply rooted civilization is in our psyches. I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise from a culture that requires people to pay to exist-i.e. rent, food costs, permits if you want to go out and get your own food, etc. Mother culture tells us that the most important thing in the world is production. Without production, constant growth, civilization would collapse. And people seem to have taken that idea to an existential level by thinking that their lives can have a quantatative value like everything else we try to control. If one finds the meaning of life, it's as if one has succeeded in making a product of one's life. One has taken one's existence and produced meaning, and those who haven't found and pursued the meaning of life don't have lives that are as valuable as the lives of the individuals who have found that meaning.
Whenever I've mentioned to people who are hot and heavy into philosophy or religion that I think the 'meaning' of life is survival of the species, they scoff and say that there must be something else that's more important, that we were put here for a reason. This is because people in this culture have an enormously fucked up sense of what it means to survive as a species. When people think anarchy, they think of raping and pillaging. When people think survival of the fittest, they think that means the physically strongest individuals reeking havoc and violence on weaker individuals. They ask, 'what about love? What about happiness?' Isn't it obvious that as social animals relationships, empathy, communication, and cooperation are the most essential characteristics for the survival of a group of people? Violence against one's own community isn't conducive to survival since one needs the community to survive. It's been proved over and over again-Into the Wild has good examples-that humans can't survive long alone. When a man rapes a woman, that isn't some animal desire being manifested that is usually kept in check by civilized life. Patriarchal civilization-at least subliminally-actually encourages rape. But if that particular mating practice was more evolutionarily sound than having the consent of two individuals, then that would be the norm. It's not, however, because brute force alone-the characteristic in question during rape-doesn't ensure a sound mating partner. While aggression and physical strength are useful, things like communication skills and common sense are also essential for human survival. A loving relationship between partners means that there is more than one person to raise offspring. In addition, the bond between partners and parents and children is such that a parent is often willing to sacrifice their life for the survival of their child or partner, which helps ensure their genes will be passed down and the species will continue (in the case of a spouse dying for the other partner, it helps ensure that the surviving partner will be around to take care of the children and community). The fact that we seek friendship is proof that we benefit from cooperative involvement with other people. Mutually beneficial relationships where people help each other with physical and emotional needs are essential, and in my opinion, beautiful. So, I don't get why it's so hard to understand that in order for the human species to survive-or perhaps a better word would be to thrive-people have evolved in such a way that we have the capacity to love and harbor strong relationships so that, even in the event of the death on an individual, their community and hopefully a set of their genes survives. What is more, we value these things and find them so moving because this instinct gives us the stimulus to create these relationships.
But in this culture, one can survive without any human contact whatsoever, and people usually have families in the midst of non-communities where they never see their neighbors and they can send their children to be raised by professionals in schools. In fact, human contact is discouraged because it's inefficient from a production standpoint. Healthy relationships aren't useful to industry. A worker who has no community and therefore no real sense of security is great for production because this worker will see their income as their means for survival. The catch, of course, is that for two million years humans have evolved to feel secure in the midst of close knit groups. If they found themselves alone and alienated from other people, this usually meant death. A 1920s street photographer, who's name I forget, explained that he shot crime scenes to illustrate how everyone in NYC was surrounded by hundreds of thousands (actually, the number six million comes to mind) of other people, yet they were still alone.
We have this ridiculous impression that survival of the fittest means cut-throat, narcissistic competition because that is what survival in this culture means, except in this culture we compete and try to do each other in through economics. That's what capitalism is. Get as much business and accumulate as much property as possible regardless of how your neighbor is doing. If your neighbors are doing poorly and you're doing well, then that's just dandy. If you can't produce enough to compete, well that sucks for you and it's your problem because there's obviously something wrong with you.
So for a couple million years, humans have found fulfillment in survival because survival entailed healthy relationships in a community where every individual was valued. Today, we look towards religion and philosophy to give us 'the meaning of life' because we think finding said meaning will allow us to feel the fulfillment we long for. Basically, I'm saying the question about 'the meaning of life' is null because this question is asker's way of trying to find a way to make their life feel worthwhile, feel right. And it's nearly impossible to feel completely at easy in a culture that is so counter to our nature. We're not naturally homocidal. Look at the surviving indigineous cultures that still exist. They're not trying to one up each other through competition. This culture tells us that our natural impulses are gross and wrong-organized religion's attitude towards sex for example-while twisting and manipulating those natural impusles for profit-porn is perhaps the most obvious example. What the average Joe would describe as anarchy, that's capitalism: every man for himself, survival of the fittest (product), no sense of responsibility nor need for other's well being. This culture takes millions of years of evolution and turns it on its head. How are we supposed to find actual, lasting happiness and fulfillment here?
Edit: changed font