01-22-2017, 04:47 PM
(01-22-2017, 11:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a good question TnT. I myself think it MAY be possible for our population to co-exist with Nature, if we use energy sources wisely (phase out fossil fuels) and restrain ourselves from using up all the land other species need to survive.
We are the outcome of natural evolution (which I think is a creative and spiritual and not merely mechanical process; a growth from the inside out, all together with organisms and environment together). So although our behavior has been dreadful in many cases, I prefer to think we are a species relatively young and going through a learning process.
I certainly think a social and economic system which favors the population in general and not a few rich people is more compatible with Nature than the oligarchy we now have. What benefits the general welfare of the people is more compatible with Nature than allowing a few greedy robber barons to exploit Nature ruthlessly, as Trump seems to prefer.
So, we grow and I hope we learn sustainable behavior without too much destruction along the way. I'm sure there will be some.
As history buffs here on this site, we can look back over the known history of our species, its behavior towards others of its kind, towards other species and toward the earth which gave us all life and conclude that there is precious little of any admirable creative and/or spiritual processes at work that we can take credit for.
I'm reminded of a horrible anecdote I ran across some years ago ... it is said that as sunlight shines through the teardrops of a dead infant whose brains were dashed out by a Nazi concentration camp guard - that the rainbow formed is the same kind as that which we judge to be beautiful in the east after a late afternoon thunderstorm.
There's a mechanistic thought for you to ponder, Eric. A bit of a philosophical conundrum?
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]