I agree there's connectedness in nature, such as in chemical reactions in which molecules form from atoms. Indeed, I argue that that natural creativity entails pantheism. But nature's creativity is amoral and mindless so its connectedness is ambiguous: it neither supports nor malevolently opposes our values, including our social and moral sense of connectedness. That's why I say nature's indifferent to social progress.

You posit the contrary, that cooperation works better than selfishness because cooperation is more natural. That's an interesting take on social Darwinism, that it supports egalitarian socialism rather than, say, the evils of capitalism.

There's certainly cooperation in the animal kingdom, but there are also a great many dominance hierarchies, based on something like the principle of oligarchy (the pragmatic centralization of power for the sake of managing a group). Egalitarianism worked for small groups in the Stone Age, but larger societies eventually shifted to what seems like the more natural way, dividing into pecking orders.