Mankind only has two options.
Live by the cold, efficient, pure laws of nature and accept the consequences, or evolve into a cooperative, humane, and intelligent species that takes control of its own destiny. The middle ground simply isn’t sustainable under our current constructs.
Extinction feeds off compromise.
Contemplating The Human Direction 
YES. :] I concur. *scampers away*
LOL…crawling away into a hole under a rock….I hope you are doing well after your house burning…I will be over for a visit as I saw several recent posts.
haha sounds exactly like me! My family and I are more or less doing well (I sleep in a bed now!). No pressure to visit 🙂 I’ll see you around
Actually we have to do both. We have to adapt and evolve as you point out; but Nature still has her laws that need to be obeyed. For instance, why are we rebuilding New Orleans when we know it will once again flood due to hurricane or rising ocean levels. The city is below sea level and sinking, and near the sea. Nature wins. Man loses on this one. Just a matter of time.
What a great example Randel! New Orleans construction was not intelligent design was it? My point about not being able to do both was more aligned with the idea of pure capitalism winner take all that has also been incorrectly used as a metaphor for Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest — juxtaposed to a social safety net. The plug of course is debt and a welfare state. You can’t have both billionaires and the majority of people living off bread crumbs. If we create a fabricated value for worth via the idea of money being equal to value created, and we allow our populations to explode beyond even 7 billion, and we attempt to apply the above given limited planet resources, it just doesn’t work. Too complex to discuss here in the comment section as I would just be repeating the entire purpose and all the posts in this blog.
I don’t think nature’s laws are cold. They are compassionate, nurturing, and amazingly tolerant! They just don’t happen to be anthropocentric. <– Haha, I thought I was making that up.
I had to look that word up…”anthropocentirc”. This word describes the view of one of my favorite poets Robinson Jeffers. The following passage is from Wikipedia…I am too tired right now to post a poem or find a better source so forgive me darling……………..Jeffers coined the phrase inhumanism, the belief that mankind is too self-centered and too indifferent to the “astonishing beauty of things.” Jeffers articulated that inhumanism symbolized humans’ inability to “uncenter” themselves.[1] In The Double Axe, Jeffers explicitly described inhumanism as “a shifting of emphasis and significance from man to notman; the rejection of human solipsism and recognition of the transhuman magnificence…. This manner of thought and feeling is neither misanthropic nor pessimist…. It offers a reasonable detachment as rule of conduct, instead of love, hate and envy…. it provides magnificence for the religious instinct, and satisfies our need to admire greatness and rejoice in beauty.
I find your views of natural laws interesting. I think man has been doing everything in his power to avoid the natural laws because he is terrified of them. Unfortunately, he has made fabricated laws and philosophies and economies that seem to have caused more waste and confusion than the simple natural laws. The natural laws will eventually take control of our faulty laws and it will be a painful verdict.
Tell me more why you think natural laws are as you described. I have a very different view from yours but I am interested in your perspective. If you don’t have time or energy to expand your thoughts no worries.
You know me, Tinc!
This life we have is born of love in every sense as much as love brings together the microbes we pretend are our building blocks. There is not one moment of beauty you are given to view that does not belong to the loving cooperation of Nature who nursed you to her perception. If looking back on her womb and the moment you spent at her breast, you choose to call her cold, then at least admit that that cold comes from your heart, and not from hers.
I wish I had your outlook:) I do think love in many forms should be one of our greatest goals as a species. I’ll give you a quick view of why I call nature cold, but pure and efficient. I wonder what that baby seal thinks of nature? When I think of nature I travel outside the Earth’s atmosphere into the great expanse which is on the whole very cold and dark with no sound. Stars explode and galaxies collide ripping stars and planets out of their orbits. Black holes devour millions of stars bigger than our sun. Giant dust clouds or nebula quietly gather immense mass and create new stars and planets. On Earth there are periods of relative calm, but that can change in a violent instant destroying without discretion. Animate creatures eat or get eaten. The most loving creature is a life giving tree, taking in and giving out. But even trees go to battle with other trees for light. In nature there is no waste or garbage or sewage problems or nuclear concerns. Everything is used and recycled. Sights of ugliness in nature are rare. Beauty is everywhere but so is terror. There exists no democracy or safety net. She can create beautiful life forms only to destroy them with an ice age or a meteor impact.