Fair enough, but I don't think I'm doing that.

Perhaps bonsai, is another way of looking at it. Bonsais are a stunted, forced into small containers, warped out of shape, constantly clipped and given the absolute bare minimum to survive.

They're kind of an artistic expression of the Buddhist idea that all of life is suffering; to find peace and harmony you have to see the beauty in suffering.

But that tree will never be what it could have been. It will never grow tall and straight. It will never house and protect life. It will never feed life. It's wood can never be used to build anything else. Even in death, a tree left alone to live the life that was meant for it will feed and house millions of lives. It will become part of the earth where it will nourish other life. A bonsai will not, or best case scenario, nowhere to the level it could have.

It's pretty, but maladaptive compared to what it would have been had it been allowed to thrive and grow as it should have been.

Nobody is saying that the bonsai is "bad". Lots of people have bonsais. As an artistic expression, it does pack a punch. Part of that punch is the recognition of the potential that was lost. But a bonsai is still a tree. It still has value. Many people would rather have a bonsai than, say, an oak tree.

When we talk about love being "good" or "bad" we kind of miss the mark, I think.

The worst maladaptive had negative connotations but it's not really "bad". It just means something has been adapted contrary to the situation or environment. In this case if love is supposed to be the driving force of communalist living, and we are a social species, then maladaptive love would be love that harms individuals and prevents them from acting in that communal fashion, either in families, tribes or communities, or nations.

The result, most certainly, is bad. You have communal breakdown. But the emotion itself still exists and has evolved to fit the same purpose, outside of ideas of good or bad.