I wonder why you think that people do everything for personal gain?
Even animals do not do this, they are able to sacrifice themselves, think about their offspring, some have collective thinking better than humans, I consider your reasoning abstract and it is not clear how to extrapolate them to the world around you, unfortunately you see excessive selfishness in the world.
but about love, first you need to decide what you mean by this, if we talk about platonic love or love like Tristan and Isolde, then of course there is very little of it, and the most important work about love that was written, I think it is love in the west by Denis De Rougemont only after getting acquainted with this work, it is worth talking about love as such, and this has a distant relationship to selfishness.

I would like to rephrase your question and say so - if we accept the theory of evolution and say that God and everything sacred is dead and there is only natural selection, why? why did natural selection come from? out of nothing? this question to which more than one evolutionist did not give me an answer, it essentially simply exists, and our humanity essentially only exists and everything, except for our presence, we cannot say anything, especially in the current paradigm of postmodernity when reality as such and any God, any myth is identical to our world, we can only accept our ignorance

Alexander Dugin has a wonderful lecture completely devoted to "reality", he considers reality not as something material or metaphysical, but as a kind of human concept, a contract. There is no reality in the concept of "real". this is an absolutely redundant concept.
At the very beginning of the novel "Journey to the End of the Night"
Louis Ferdinand Celina has the following lines - "travel is useful, it makes the imagination work"
Man does not travel through reality, man imagines
the person gives the installation that he lives in the "real world".
This is one of, in my opinion, although not a lot of radical, but an applied position, although this question is 100% dependent on how you understand reality, but if you take reality as such, then this is tantamount to talking about truth, the meaning of life and other eternal questions

I believe that Dostoevsky should be viewed not as a philosopher, although there is certainly an incredible amount of philosophical ideas in his works, but as an ideally accurate representation of the archetype of the Russian person and his soul, after reading a huge number of his works in the original, his letters and articles, I see him as brilliant a Russian writer with a Western form of narration, a Russophile and a person who believes in Jesus with all his heart, and his whole philosophy is directed against socialism and nihilism in particular, projecting this in his works of art and articles, this is his main philosophical applied position, his love for Jesus and Russia is inseparable from his philosophy

To have children or not to have is only a decision of the subject, which depends on many factors, but in any case, these positions are only either the possibility of having a child, or not and are not facts, but are opportunities or moral assessments, it does not matter that you have children or not, there is no better moral way out because there are no moral facts, but I noticed that you, like many, think that the planet is overpopulated, not knowing that all of humanity can be drowned in Lake Baikal

I think your question is too difficult not only in its formulation, but also in the interpretation of such definitions as light or darkness and everything connected with it, I am also sure that this question is purely philosophical, because physics, for example, within its episteme is trying to answer the question as? and philosophy when asked why? and here we are faced with the problem that the concept of matter and, both darkness and light in physics does not in any way explain the very essence of this concept, therefore, in different disciplines, a different description of this concept can be traced, whether light or darkness can be physical objects or opposites is the eternal question of religion, poetry, philosophy and the general understanding of a person of good and evil who rests only on various formulations of these concepts, if in Chinese philosophy one can consider light and darkness as a struggle of opposites, then for example, Hegel interprets this as some kind of cognitive processes of the absolute spirit, because in absolute light there is nothing not visible as in absolute darkness

the problem is that, in your opinion, a person will be human when he is intelligent and experiencing emotions, but who told you that? how to empirically trace the moment when a person becomes a person? the answer is obvious in no way can it be traced, one way or another I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth? and a person develops after his birth for a huge amount of time, a person does not become a person after birth who determines this and how? magically? I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you

then what are we killing?

my position is that I am for abortion according to my moral principles, but if we take the logical proposition that a zygote cannot be killed because she does not feel anything or because she is not a reasonable person, then we logically assume that people with the syndrome can be killed down because he is not a reasonable person or we can kill sleeping people because they do not feel anything, yes we can say that a person will wake up, but then he will cease to be a sleeping person with the same condition a person can be born, it is important to note that only with the fusion of a sperm and an egg can to be born a person and of course separately they do not represent human life, which is understandable. I am deeply convinced that the problem of abortion is a language problem, because the concept of a person is a humanistic concept and we cannot trace the moment of its origin, but if we take the proposition that you cannot kill a person at one stage, then you cannot kill him at another. but this only concerns the logical sequence in the real world, there are various situations when an abortion is necessary and I support this, and of course for me, according to my moral convictions, the death of a person who was born is much worse than the death of a zygote.

abortion is often delayed by the fact that they do not kill a full-fledged person if we take this proposition, then it follows that we can not kill full-fledged people with various defects because I gave this example, if we take another proposition that we do not kill a person then we ask the question and who do we kill? one way or another, we kill one of the stages of human development, and if you follow this proposition, there is no difference if you kill an old man, a zygote, or a person with down syndrome, you will still kill a person. what is worse and what is better depends on the question posed, moral facts, etc. in any case, nothing is more important than human life

I completely agree with you in everything, on the example of sleeping people or people with down syndrome, I wanted to show some identity with the murder of the zygote in the sense that this murder is even more terrible in my opinion, as far as moral facts are concerned, I believe that they do not exist as something materially provable, but this does not exclude their significance and for me, moral factors are the criterion of truth and the highest virtue.

The problem is that in this concept there is no worthy argumentation, but it is all based on moral judgments that cannot be verified in any way. another point is that a person does not become a person at some particular moment, such as after birth, the concept of "person" is a humanistic concept that can be considered from different points of view, but one thing you can know for sure is the zygote is the stage of human development and if we assume that a person you cannot kill, for example, in old age or at a young age, which means we admit that it is impossible to kill a person, and if we admit that it is possible to kill a zygote, then we admit that it is possible to kill sleeping people, people with down syndrome, etc. but it is important to note that this proposition works there we believe that people really cannot be killed, that is, we admit, again, a moral fact.

Free will is the will to be responsible and nothing more, and any discussion about free will speaks only about one thing - nothing. is even a matter of different terminologies, but of language and its boundaries and the banal misunderstanding that will is a conventional concept.