Utopia

Which is a given, why are you even arguing this?

is it? then why are we the only species destroying its habitat? Nahh, life and nature aren't perfect. They're far from that.



Because there seem to be some people which don't understand what we're talking about right here..

The human world is not natural

We consider ourselves above nature

that is why we are ruining it

We think our "intelligence" is superior to nature.

These things are obvious.

Money overrules logic in this world. Money is strictly a human concept. It is not natural, and it is ruining our world.

In nature, nature is perfect...life is kept going by formerly living matter, so as long as their's life, there will continue to be life, unless of course humans come along in their might and continue to disregard nature as if we don't need it or something, in which case nature will begin to diminish, hmmm, isn't this happenign right now?

Nature is perfect, this imaginary world we've built up is not perfect, because it is not natural. I can prove it is not natural, because the only thing detrimental to nature come about as a result of human actions.

Our bodies are Utopia. Every living thing is Utopia. Imagine what the world would be like if we went back to the way of nature. Utopia.

Nature´s not perfect, because if it was it would´ve overwon us, it doesn´t, we overwin nature - whether it´s good or bad..

Global Warming? Other things along those lines, that'd be a pretty effective way to get rid of this human problem. Nature wouldn't DO those things, they would HAPPEN as a result of our actions. But since we are nature, then nature actually WOULD do those things. There's an example of nature's perfection.

...which is a tautological argument. When nature does things without our help, that's a natural act; and when nature does things with our help, that's also a natural act (since "we are nature"); therefore, everything that happens is a natural act whether it's nature or us--which is effectively to say that the term "natural act" doesn't really mean anything, since it's not different from any other kind.

On top of that, you seem to suggest that when nature is winning against us, it's an example of nature's perfection; and when we're winning against nature, it's also an example of nature's perfection (since by winning against nature we're losing against ourselves); therefore nature is perfect no matter what the state of affairs is, which is effectively to say that perfection is an empty concept, since it can mean anything.

In other words, you're not demonstrating that perfection exists; you're presupposing that it exists and then rationalizing this, primarily by stretching the definition of perfection so that it encompasses everything. And a theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Of course, all of this rhetorical nit-picking aside, I'll just point out again that the one example of utopia we keep coming back to--the human body--is, not surprisingly, the metaphorical one. Such is the nature of utopia. If you really think it's possible to model a society of people on the human body (or nature or whatever), you need to be more specific about what that means in terms of ACTION. How, exactly, are people to interact? That's where society, let alone utopian society, begins. Anything less than that is still abstract speculation.

No I beleive you missed my point.

It is unnatural to harm nature. Nothing else does it because everything else is humble enough to realize that nature is the end all and be all. Unfortunately, money power and greed subdue our humbleness. we live in a world where jealousy is the driving natural emotion. We just got "smart" and devised institutions for us to cater to this jealousy. There's where greed, money and power come from. Humans harm nature, and as a result nature will seek to root out the source of it's harm. It's quite simple really....

Guess you've never seen the results of overbrowsing, or of beavers destroying marshland, or an invasive species taking over a habitat to the detriment of the indigenous species, have ya?

Well lets say I have, what of it?

Well, if you have, then the majority of what you said in your previous post was either in contradiction to what you've seen, or in spite of it.

In short, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Of the above statements, the ones who caused damage to nature were human induced, the ones caused by natural causes, not so bad to nature. Thats what i mean

The environment is only the balance of nature. The danger is when we alter the balance which could affect humans and even our long term survival.

are we not doing that yet?