@PhilosophyForum,
Perplexity brings up a good point.
Balance is a matter of where the fulcrum is set, so to speak.
But if the fulcrum is set to the center of each equation; then the result is balance...correct?
Now if the same fulcrum is offset on each equation, what we get is too many carnivores, too much pollution, too many diseases, and too many subversive politicians...for example.
Set in the opposite direction: We have too many herbivores, too much excess fuel sources which means an influx in the economy, healthy people which means an influx in the economy, and honest politicians, which means that the influx is spread to the people, which means that inflation rates soar...and all of a sudden a loaf of bread costs $80 because everyone is rich and therefore money is worthless, creating an economic nightmare.
Balance is not only neccessary, but exists without us realizing it sometimes.
Everything is always on the move, forcing change in our existance, as well as the balance of things, to paraphrase and interpret what perplexity stated above me.
We don't always know when balance is going to shift.
What we do know, is that because humans can adapt; a change of balance means we will also change to suit that balance, which creates it's own balance due to the intervention of human nature.
Quote:Like so many notions, balance is an off the shelf generalisation sold to fit the complexity of the Universe into the smallness of our mind.
It certainly is an easy way to explain things, isn't it.
Kind of like any unexplained phenomenon...it's easy to say something is an act of God if it has no other rational explanation.
To accept the notion that the entire universe is in perfect balance, would be one step closer to admitting or accepting that there is an Omniscient Divinity controlling the fulcrum of creation, which many people are not willing to accept.