Gorillas and chimps are not similar at all in terms of social structures. Gorillas are heavily polygynous while chimps are more classified as promiscuous. There are more dominant and less dominant males for chimps as well as competition for social status, but social status is less connected with reproduction than in Gorillas, where the head male monopolizes groups of females and infanticide is common.

Most importantly, they are both very different from humans, who are far more monogamous because raising our babies is incredibly difficult. We're fairly flexible and able to have all types of relationships under the sun, from polygyny to polyandry. Our social structures can have more or less dominant members. While that often coincides with men who best wield violence, there are many other important things that are used to exert domination and control, from group support to one's usefulness at important tasks.

Above all else, "alpha" men who rise through the ranks by being brutal assholes are not always those who are successful. If anything, the original alpha male study showed how behavior is flexible given the context. In brutal conditions with mostly strangers, violence and domination is likely the most successful strategy. Typically, wolf hierarchies are based on seniority within family units, where being an asshole isn't always the best idea. The situation drives behavior, so alpha bros will only be as prevalent as our social structures support.

We are capable of whatever currently works best because nature is fundamentally about whatever works best. Biology evolves slowly, but it's also designed to adapt to a variety of circumstances. Most toxic men are made by being rewarded for toxicity instead of being rewarded for rejecting it. Different people tend towards different behavior through a multitude of factors, but room can be made to satisfy most typical impulses in a positive way.

You are kinda right about harnessing things like biology, but our understanding of things is the most dangerous thing of all.