Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzers
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Nature is lazy? In what context are you referring? What are you comparing nature to in order to attribute laziness as a trait? Or are you speaking of the nature of man?
Is it NOT natures intent to bring forth life? Is it NOT natures purpose to survive? What is nature's role in selecting winners and losers? What would Darwin say?
At what point in the evolutionary process are "we" no longer apart of nature? If we all evolved from a single celled organism is man part of nature?
Is a Beaver that builds a dam Lazy? Is the act of building the dam even considered nature? If that beaver had the intellectual ability and physical aptitude to build a dam with cement would he chose to, and would that be considered natural?
If a man builds a dam why is it not considered natural? Is the man and beaver's purpose for building the dam much different?
I don't understand your point here? So because we have differing ambitions trying to unify people you construe as being hideous, because it is in opposition to man's natural state?
Stalin and the Russian Army had far different ambitions during WWII but found a reason to ally with the U.S. and England to survive.
I'm the 1st person to say "forced amalgamation" is hideous, but the attempt to persuade others to join your cause even if they have different ambitions can always enlighten a man's senses.
Anyways please clarify your position if I have missed the mark here.
|
Nature seeks equilibrium, which combats excellence. It only ever does what must be done, nothing more. Progress is only ever realized out of necessity and then only to the bare minimum.
Beavers build dams because they are semi-aquatic creatures. They alter the environment to give them a competitive advantage and flooding an area by piling a bunch of chewed up wood in a stream affords sufficient advantage, so that is where it stops.
It should also be noted that the beaver is a prime example of bastardization due to the wanton sloth of nature. It is a giant rat that lives in the water. It has adapted to a very particular environment by the happenstance of genetic variation. Is it better than all other wood-eating aquatic rats at being a wood-eating aquatic rat? Sure, but not because it is ideally suited to its environment. Rather it was better suited than alternatives which were not well suited at all since they have not survived.
If the standard for excellence is simply finishing, it is without significant relevance and no different from mediocrity.
Despite his frequent disdain for it, man enjoys the unique capacity to question and defy carnal impulse by which nature operates.