Im betting on the fact that humans have baked in altruism. We want to help each other. As a kid I got stuck in the forrest with my dirt bike and a gnarly looking guy helped me get home with his truck. It was a scary experience and it was a risk. I think most people are basically good. Men just have the strength to act on it when they are bad people.

But, like, a man could still kill you, right? Is that better than being eaten?

I mean generally being eaten entails entrails leaking out, whereas getting killed could entail any number of things. Neck snap, choked out, slit throat, whatever. I dunno if your average idiot man is gonna be as proficient of a killer as a bear, even if they happen to be a murderer or like, just evil, right, so, I dunno. Kind of a toss up. Me personally, I would rather not have my guts spilled out, ribcage crushed, spine snapped, bones gnawed on while I'm still conscious, slowly lose blood and lose consciousness over the course of 30 minutes to an hour. I mean I guess theoretically a man could do those things too, but I dunno many men that could. Maybe like, the mike tyson of 40 years ago?

I guess the argument I'm making hinges on the idea that humans are generally bad at killing in a physiological sense, and their need to kind of, up themselves in the game means that they tend to get filtered into a bunch of more painless and efficient approaches relative to the kind of uncaring cruelty of nature more generally. But then I dunno, humans also have a capacity for needless cruelty and torture, so I'd also be betting my chances that I don't get shafted and stuck with like, a super jacked serial killer that can torture me with their bare hands, which there's probably only like 2 or 3 of in the world. Maybe more if you include government contracted ones.