Ain't mother nature grand?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Human kind, having evolved from the depths of prehistoric jungles, has a 'natural' awe of the processes of nature.
But is this hideously, mindless system of wanton carnage, with each level of the food chain 'shredding' the existence of the levels below it, in an endless parasitic orgy, breaching all levels of sensitivity and reason, something to be admired?

Nature is, in my opinion, a lousey system, that we happen to be stuck with because it happened billions of years ago, and through evolutionary mayhem, somehow continued to work (other systems were even more complicated, and some probably still lie on the floor of the original "lab").

Like our useless pair of arms, hands, legs and feet, born of cell mitosis, or meiosis, into two 'daughter' cells, where 'three' resulting cells would have provided us with three hands, etc. (just the right number)! Laughing

My thesis here is the there is nothing 'marvelous' to be inspired by; nature just 'is' and as a civilization we must do our best to tear ourselves from the grasp of a system that required us to compete, and consume savagely at the expense of everything around us.

If we are to survive as a species, we must rise above 'nature', 'deprogram' our 'hardwiring' and together, build a better system, to support a culture of sharing, conservation, and compassion, extending even beyond ourselves to securing the future of the natural world, which will undoutedly remain our home.

and a brief addendum:
I, and probably others, would appreciate responses free of 'proclamations, and dogma'; a personal 'take' on the subject is what i am looking for, not an institutional one!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,992 • Replies: 67

No top replies

BGW,

You make me wonder what you think nature is. After all, "rising above" nature... would be nature.

0 Replies

Bo, I think you pose a good point/thesis. Why so much carnage. It does seem to be an aweful waste, whatever you call it, nature, survival of the fittest, foodchain rung possession or evolution. Or on a human level, my gun is bigger than your gun. Surely nature is just a name to envelope the world and life in general. We have certain requirements and needs to sustain us. Food, clothing, houses, Motown products, metal or music and companionship. These products come to us as stolen, animal slaughter or given, cows milk, chickens eggs.
We have senses, taste, touch, smell, hearing, sight with which to enjoy so many of the things around us. Can you imagine sex without those crucial senses. What shall I hang onto tonight darlin' ?
You're right Bo, It's hi-time we gave some of it back

0 Replies

Perhaps what we have here is a dimensional viewpoint problem. Hard to see the bigger picture when we are just elements in it.

I doubt that we could conceive a system that remains as stable and creative as nature.

Do away with death? Then we must shed sex/birth as well or the world will be a coagulated mass of humans.

As a taoist, I believe that the void of nonlife (death and its 'apposite'--nonbeing awaiting being) is central, and the violence swirling around it mere perception.

Water is not violent, though it tears over the rocks as it makes its way to lower ground. Rocks are ground to sand, but there is no malice. The gazelle loves the grass as the lion the gazelle. The chain, and not the links, are really life.

We cannot see nature. The eye cannot see itself.

0 Replies

I think the Taoists have a point. "We" can never see "nature" except for the particular purposes of our collective "selves". Historically and culturally, responses to nature have varied. We as "designers of systems" might agree that "nature" is callously "inefficient" but this is is to take an anthropomorphic/religious view "nature" as separate from us as observers.

The scoundrel in all this is of course "cognition"..that which gives us a concept of "time" along which "development" unfolds. We seek to "control" our destinies and nature is seen by non-taoists as our opponent in this quest. But who can say whether such cognition will not itself evolve into something "higher" (a la Jonathan Livingstone Seagull) and "destiny" take on another dimension ? ...and would this be Mother Nature's doing !

0 Replies

Perhaps the white ibis I saw tonight cautiously skirting the edge of the pond carried west nile virus. All I saw was something regal that harbors a hidden message.

"There is nothing neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so."

Nature can be overcome by nurture.

Now enough of that stuff. I do believe, Bo, that we can tame the gene. I do believe that we can reclaim the earth, but something must be an inspiration. What is that inspiration?

Beedle, "...The eye cannot see itself..." now that's inspiration. Cool

Oakman, the senses are the only definition we have of being alive, and with the loss of one, others sharpen.

and laconic and cryptic Craven. "Other friends have FLOWN before...." got it right that time. Smile

Gestalt--all is Gestalt.

Phooey....goodnight to all of you from all of me.

0 Replies

"Gestalt!" Bless you Letty Wink

Personally, I think that everything you need to know about human savagery you can learn from watching Animal Planet.

0 Replies

cav,

Now I find myself wondering if Bo is talking about nature/nurture, or flora/fauna.

0 Replies

OK, starting @ the beginning;
Craven;
The factors of 'nature' that i would like to leave behind are; the territorial instinct, the need to 'own' things, including a mate, as opposed to any thought of sharing the common resources; the tribal heirarchy, which requires a 'pecking order of 'power level' assigning those who by ill luck, are not as genetically 'able' as others, to a life of drudgery; and these two combined, in a worst case - 'nationalism' - the foolish concept of a specific group of people, living on a specific piece of land, being somehow 'special' and better than all the neighbouring groups, in neighbouring areas, for any trumped up reason they can devise.
To be rid of these ideas, born of the jungle, and clinging to us like tar, that we are unable to 'clean off', and live by knowledge, instead of 'tradition.

0 Replies

As OAK says; most of the 'necessities?' of life, are murderously carved from the other creatures of this planet, on our whim.
And this is justified by a web of supertitious nonsense, that gives the naked ape 'dominion' over the other residents of this planet.
Some are beginning to see that sharing the resources, and caring for the other animals, is the only way we will be able to survive into the future, but those tied to the traditions of the past would destroy such hope.

Beedles....;
I agree, we would need to overhaul the concepts and approach entirely, to institute a better system; perhaps that would be the subject for another thread, but here i am only asking for an assesment of the system we are stuck with; an unobstructed view of how it actually works, and, i feel by looking without predudice, with a new eye, we stand a better chance of
disconnecting ourselves from the loop; governing our lives, not with the savagery, we have learned to accept, but in a new positive light of logic, and wisdom.

0 Replies

but canajuns are better

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

We seek to "control" our destinies and nature is seen by non-taoists as our opponent in this quest. But who can say whether such cognition will not itself evolve into something "higher" (a la Jonathan Livingstone Seagull) and "destiny" take on another dimension ? ...and would this be Mother Nature's doing !

It seems we share the same goal, but if you are right, the only route i see to it is decidedly'non-Taoist'.

Letty; i am not trying to vilify the natural world, in which, for millenia animals, bonded inescapably to the 'system' have mimicked their ancestors, and, following the directives of instinct, mindlesly doing what every member of their species has done before.
I think, being able to recognize the workings of this 'web of life', we can expect more; recognizing our conceptual abilities we should not be satisfied to 'mimic' the past.
And the inspiration to do so Letty, is the 'writing' which is so very clearly scribed upon our every wall.

And Cav; isn't 'this' 'Animal Planet"? that we wander in every day?

0 Replies

ehBeth; we wouldn't appear to be so overtly, if there where any 'competition'. (oops, i didn't say that! Rolling Eyes

)

0 Replies

The "chaos" of nature is necessary because it is this chaos which perpetuates change. Living things are born and need to die in order for more to live, they are built of the elements- the building blocks of life, and need to return to the earth. Only the organisms well equipped to survive pass on their genes, ensuring success in future generations. Even the cellular and genetic systems are a little messy, allowing for variations which could lead to adventagous mutations or variations. For example, the gene passing on sickle cell anemia, when not expressed, prevents Malaria. Nature plods along, it is this chaos that gaurantees it's success.

Humans have not transgressed nature. We alter nature to suit our comforts, much like beavers build dams and ants build ant farms, we have not become un-natural by being builders. It is the mass of our population and our building that is killing other parts of nature. The success of mankind is that it was adventagous for humans to have bigger brains capable of comprehending for a number of reasons- better communication, tool and trap building, etc.. Who knows whether these qualities will serve us well in the long run- we may become too overpopulated and reach our carrying capacity and use this knowledge to fight to the death. Or we may be wiped out by disease, running out of natural resources, alien takeover - very unlikely but who knows Wink

. Humans are subject to the same basic needs as all other living things on the planet.

Note that Humans haven't been on this earth very long, comparitavely speaking.

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

I find myself wondering if Bo is talking about nature/nurture, or flora/fauna.

They are all part of the same system; the system that developed millions of years ago by default, after who knows how many failures, to do a much simpler job than is demanded of it today, with the advent of 'cognition' thrown into the mix.

0 Replies

I'm going to use my opposable thumbs to grip on a limb here, but I am assuming that Bo refers to ridding ourselves of 'animal instinct' in order to 'order' the world around us with the intellect we have been blessed with. Also, yes, my comment regarding Animal Planet meant exactly that. Laughing

0 Replies

Be careful with ascribing humanizing qualities to things that aren't human, BoGoWo. Unless, of course, you are writing poetry.

0 Replies

Hmm, I should expand....what separates us from the animals is cognition, and the ability to envision and create a balanced world. Yet, we more often than not give into our base instincts, which is counter-evolutionary, not progress. Although we have the capacity to grow beyond that state of 'natural' being, it seems that over and over, we choose not to.

0 Replies

It i precisely the amoral nature of 'nature' which renders it unsuitable as a basis for civilization.
What goes on in the natural world has been tested only for 'success', no other criteria have been applied.
Consider a bank, an institution based on amassing wealth by various means.
If an aberation was adopted into the workings of the bank's day to day activities whereby everyone who entered the bank to deposit money was killed before they could leave, and their money absorbed into the bank's assets; the bank's wealth would grow appreciably by this change, so on a success testing basis it would be kept as a policy.
We can look at this bizzaar suggestion, and label it morally reprehensible, and take measures under the law to eliminate this practice.

Nature has no such feedback controls!

0 Replies

Ain't mother nature grand?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know