nature

say... what is nature?

why do people look at a tree and think it is natural yet look at a flagpole and think it is not? or a rock as opposed to concrete?

advertistments say: 100% natural. but specifically, what is natural? is the ginseng and honey shampoo really things taken from the water, air, ground, plants and crudely mixed together? certainly not. the fact that it can lather shows that it has undergone a series of chemical reactions.

hence i feel that being derived from nature cannot mean natural. and in the first place what is nature?

is a dam built by a beaver natural? how about a dam built by humans?

is it natural to grow GM corn? how different is the growing and genetic coding process from natural selection? note that in GM we do not make the genes, we only put all the good genes together. hmm. birds build nests too by joining all the good branches together. is that natural?

so... why is it better to retreat to nature and use what nature gives? how say i eat GM potato, u eat natural croton, and see who lives longer.

the reason why people choose it live in a so-called artificial environment is because it is more comfortable and safe in orders of magnitude.

would you like to go to the middle of the jungle naked?

now put on clothes, shoes, guns, bullets, explosives, chainsaws, concrete.... does that feel better?

how about having all these on, and put in an air conditioned well- lit room with virtually zero risk of dying of parasites, tigers, snakes and centipedes?

the choice is obvious.

a beaver can live without a dam. it can live better with one. thats is why beavers build dams.

some say, well, if you live "naturally" you wun die of cancer. well. i think that is because you die of food poisoning, parasites, predators, starvation, venom, infection, diseases ...etc before you get a chance to even contract cancer.

i feel that our sense of "naturalness" is flawed. i think that anything that can exist is natural. how so? a mountain is not very different from a building in physical terms. by studying physics, we are using nature to help accomplish our cause.

how about deforestation? is it not against nature? no. we humans are just consumers. albeit really wasteful and destructive ones. viruses and vermin are natural too. and they can cause the destruction of a forest. and they are part of nature. there is nothing unnatural about destroying the forest. perhaps if that is what the path that humans feel they have to take, then it is a natural process to the advancement of human beings. perhaps we are destroying ourselves too. i say yep. and so be it if that is what we want. no point talking about nature if you don't even know what it means to be natural. shall we blow up the earth? not yet, i want to stay in this air conditioned room and enjoy life.

wait a minute, if we blow up the earth we'll DIE! no lar no... so don't blow up the earth please if you want to live. i think that is enough knowledge to protecting the earth. screw animal rights, animals are WRONG because they are animals and they are born as the wrong species. not that i will toture dogs for the fun of it, but think about it... how much money does it take to fund an animal rights NGO? how much fuel do we need to perform a save-with-our-superior-technology-the-poor-alligator-that-would-have-eaten-us-up-if-not-for-our-superior-technology-and-it-is-dying-because-of-our-superior-technology mission? we are killing so many things to save an animal.

i think we should just put the seeds in the quarries, dump the shit in it and watch it grow. if it won't grow, fine, we screwed up bad now what.

it is only natural that one specie destroy another to gain dominance. if we do not destroy them they will destroy us. so why not let it be us who do the destroying?

i agree, the ecosystem is a delicate balance in all aspects of the populations in it. however, if it is so vulnerable, how could it survive the catastrophe that wiped out dinosaurs? so far the ecosphere has suffered 5 catastrophes, and studying the timeline scientists predict that the sixth one will be caused by us. i think the ecosystem is a rather hardy thing. the catatrophe will most probably wipe us out, together with dogs, cats, pigs, and monkeys. but life will still go on. the human society is probably an even more intricate balance. all civilisations end with feuds and wars, and with globalisation and nuclear technology wars are even deadlier.

perhaps we should be more concerned with how we can live with less energy so that we can spent less money, and more money on technology to live better. it is through technology that society can improve, and it seems that preventing all lifeforms on earth from ceasing to exist would not be our primary concern.

if we can solve our political tensions, put all defence spendings on industry and technology, we are already doing what we can to save the earth. that can't be done? aww shucks let's just cross our fingers. people driving SUVs and riding concordes for miles to plant a tree do not help to save the earth.