You could look at it from multiple sides. For example, if you are playing a first person shooter game, even knowing it is a game, you will want to win.

As these things go way beyond the life of the individual, if the cycle were to end even one day after my death I would not be around to grieve or celebrate it.

True if you assume ones existance end with the death of his body. We can equally assume that this life is a thrill-ride for the sole and we are reborn in new bodies all the time.

A cycle which has no value to the individual and perhaps no value at all.

It completely depends on the moral framework you adopt. You can pick one, where it has no value or you could pick one where it is highly valuable. :)

So again, does nature truly favor or serve the individual?
No, many individuals serves nature, which is why these "winners" are so unhappy.

This is a very broad question. Of course, a winner might overdo it or follow some unproductive ambitions, etc. but still, in the same circumstances, a winner would be happier, than the looser. On the other hand, why should we assume happiness is the goal anyway?

The question is, what is each of us to take or use to build our moral framework.

The way I do it, at first I pick what kind of life I want to live and then construct a moral framework that supports it. At least I really can't think of any other criteria. )

But of course they cannot all be right,

They don't need to. Moral framework is supposed to bind & blind people, not be factually accurate.

For example, 100 vigilant Muslims who act in unison would easily take over, probably, 10.000 atheists, who are caught in analysis-paralysis and are unable to act as a group.

Does it?

Sure. Ask 10 women, whom would they would like to mate with, a winner or a looser? Pretty much that's all nature cares about.

Probably the issue here is that what the nature sees as desirable is rather different from what we do. Nature favors the winners, while we want everybody to hug and sing kumbaya.
That way a civilization is unsustainable in the long run, as people get security, they become weak, pathetic, self-hating. Barbarians roll in and conquer. Look at modern Europe, for example.

Of course, the title was rhetorical. )

especially as it ends with saying that we usually go with cultural ideas rather than logic.

But don't we? Especially since logic is linked to the answers of those 3 questions, which at this point can not be answered logically. So putting it simply, logic is good at working with an illogical framework. )

I would say the best approach might to come up with a model of life you want to live, then pick a framework that would bring you closer to it. So instead of looking for "what is the true" meaning of life, pick one that feels more convenient.

Certainly not. I was talking about stupid people voting for populists and them forcing others to live with the consequences.

then let us leave them to enjoy the consequences of their action. yet the problem is if they cause other people to suffer.

seems they can learn only when the consequences kick them in the butt.
yet saving decent people from the decisions of stupid people might be a good idea... or maybe not.