11 ms·
The system is in complete harmony. Sometimes the predators are in the ascendancy, sometimes the prey. Our science has little comprehension of the grandeur of th
by MrMcCall 2y ago
The system is in complete harmony. Sometimes the predators are in the ascendancy, sometimes the prey. Our science has little comprehension of the grandeur of the totality of Nature's balance, simply because the willful ignorance of the vast majority of the human race keeps us so out of balance in its destructively selfish competitions.
We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos, instead of selfishly cruel indifference. When we choose compassionate service to all (including the Earth, herself), we not only improve the lives of those around us (and foment our own internal peace and happiness), but we also clariy our perception, allowing us to more deeply grok Nature's intricately beautiful systems that provide our sustenance.
Only in caring for each other, we will learn how to properly care for our blessed mother Earth.
- fmbb 2y agoThe vast majority of the human race plays just fine with nature. It is the extremely few extremely rich humans that are abusing nature.
- amelius 2y agoYeah but we all keep feeding the monster.
- Retric 2y agoMowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people. People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.
- MrMcCall 2y agoWe have so little respect for the fungal colonies in the leaf litter that process the organic matter back into sustenance for the trees.
- bmitc 2y agoThe point of trails in parks is to preserve nature and to localize and constrain the damage to it.
- thfuran 2y agoAnd some parks expressly forbid leaving the trails for that reason.
- Retric 2y agoYes and no, over a full year there’s ~6 visits to a national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable result of how many people visit parks. You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there. But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
- bmitc 2y agoSeveral, if not most, of the plants are extremely senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten path by a few people or even one person will damage the plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile. People should not go off paths.
- Retric 2y agoThat really only applies to moderate traffic area. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them. But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues. Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.
- deadbabe 2y agoYou do not have to be rich. Anyone choosing to eat meat is feeding into the system of abuse and torture. Anyone.
- fmbb 2y agoSure. But that’s another discussion than the one about balance in nature.
- hiatus 2y agoI take it you do not live in a food desert where access to fresh produce is limited.
- deadbabe 2y agoThat is no excuse.
- perching_aix 2y agoYou don't sound like you'd accept anything as an excuse, so that's really not saying a whole lot...
- PretzelPirate 2y agoWhether or not you love in a food desert, the result of your actions are the same. You may have no choice, but you're still financially supporting animal cruelty. The action is cruel, not the people committing it.
- block_dagger 2y agoYou can move.
- hombre_fatal 2y agoYou don't need fresh produce to not eat animals. Beans, whole grains, potatoes, canned vegetables are the cheapest foods around. These people already weren't eating fresh produce, so why would they need fresh produce to swap meat for beans? Though I think debating your idea of exceptions is a red herring unless you yourself are vegan and already concede that pretty much anyone reading this on HN should be vegan. But you probably don't grant that, so there's no need to go line-by-line through your idea of the exceptions when we can discuss why you still eat meat without making excuses for other people.
- block_dagger 2y agoI disagree. The agricultural revolution shows clear signs of using land that could otherwise be used by other species, not to mention the destruction of species that were there before we began tilling the soil. Additionally, the rich humans you call out are selling their product to the masses, who happily support their enterprise.
- Etheryte 2y agoThis is an antiquated view and it would do all of humanity a great service if we could leave it behind. Humans are not the only ones capable of selfless compassion. Any emotion you may have, animals also have, and there are many examples of animals showing compassion without any benefit to themselves. We have examples of plants showing selfless care for other plants in need, sending them nutrients. This whole idea that humans are somehow special is silly. It used to be a widely held belief that we're the only intelligent species, but these days we know better. Animals have emotions just like us, but sadly we largely haven't shaken off our human centric view here yet.
- MrMcCall 2y agoWe are the only creatures that can choose compassion over selfishness. The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior. Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used, TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to mind. Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply, "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my everywhere, and then licking your face. So keep it coming, or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."
- kamma 2y ago> The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in their every behavior. Proof?
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoWe are a part of this chaos, not its masters, nor its caretakers. To say we are the only creatures capable of compassion is to elevate ourselves on a pedestal Nature does not recognize. The crocodile may carry its young gently in its jaws, and the antelope may pause to nuzzle its dying calf, but these acts, too, are not born of some selfless ethos but of impulses evolved to ensure survival. Compassion, even in us, is no purer than the physics of a falling tree crushing the undergrowth beneath it. It is Nature's practicality dressed in the robes of morality. This notion that by choosing compassion we align ourselves with some grand system of interconnected beauty—this is human hubris disguised as virtue. When we care for each other, we do not rise above Nature; we merely enact one of its many mechanisms, one more strategy for persistence in the face of inevitable decay. The Earth does not need our care. She has endured extinction events that wiped out almost all life and reshaped her surface with volcanic fire and freezing ice. She will endure us, too, with the same impassive grandeur. To truly perceive Nature is not to grok some intricate beauty but to confront the void, the merciless indifference, and to marvel at how, against all odds, life writhes and endures within it. Compassion, then, is not a gift we bestow upon the world—it is a small defiance, a trembling candle held aloft in the endless darkness. We do not save Nature; we survive it. And that is enough.
- MrMcCall 2y agoYou are truly eloquent at speaking for yourself and your cohort's stubborn insistence on your ignorance. For you, all these things are true, because you have chosen that perspective, and that is your inalienable right. You can't explain the Placebo Effect, while you are proving the Nocebo Effect every time you try to argue against the truth. The fact is that the last time you tried this, I addressed every single word you conjured up, so much so that it took a two-part reply. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991) In the words of Eugene Parker, "We'll see who falls flat." And, in case you weren't aware, the "void" of the vacuum of space is actually filled with potential energy. That's because we're all one in this creation, all of which was created for us, the only beings here that can appreciate the sublime laws that interrelate space, time, matter, energy, and more still. No, we are not its masters, just its caretakers, if we so choose.
- deadbabe 2y agoJust because we have not discovered an underlying reason behind our compassion yet does not mean it is selfless.
- MrMcCall 2y agoAs human beings, we can create our own reasons for anything we do, from the horrific to the beautiful, from the selfish to the selfless. We can conjure reasons to oppress other human beings, or contrive reasons to help them be happier. We can believe any truth or any lie or anything in between. It's all our choice what to beleive, for good or ill. Behind all this is our unfettered freedom of choice via our free will, which allows us to either acquiesce to our conscience's proddings or to oppose them to our own and others' unhappiness. So, yes, many people feign compassion for some kind of payback, or public plaudits, so, yes, not all acts of compassion are performed selflessly. But the universe knows, sister; it keeps a full tally of all our acts and the intentions behind them. The key understanding is that we are to develop ourselves so that we not only act compassionately but that we also do so out of selfless service, caring not for any kind of payback from those we serve. We should leave it to the universe to pay us back, and it will, guaranteed, just as those that wrong us will eat the dish made of that they have reaped from their sowing. We do not begin our lives in this state of goodness; we start off with a mix of selfishness and selfishness, across 19 pairs of vice and virtue pairs. It is our human potential, and responsibility, to transmute those vices into their corresponding virtues, for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. The universe does not make us do so, we must choose it of our own free will, but it has given us a karmic system whereby our happiness increases as we do so to others, and vice versa. Therein resides the realm of peace and happiness, even in the eye of the maelstrom. The universe loves you, sister. I explain this in great depth in my past week's posts. We love you, and may peace be with you.
- vixen99 2y agoYou appear to have an unassailable belief in your own moral arbitration as to what is compassionate.
- MrMcCall 2y agoOr maybe I just know the truth? It's very difficult for someone who denies reality to formulate any semblance of an argument against the truth.
- thfuran 2y ago>Or maybe I just know the truth? The evidence available to me suggests otherwise.
- MrMcCall 2y agoOnly you can provide the evidence, my friend. The proof of self-evolution is achieved through an open heart, open mind, and a full commitment. You have claimed you can't graduate college, but you refuse to matriculate. If you want to know how it's done, look through my comment history. You will find the steps in the spiritual development process I term the "Path of Love". "The Way goes in." --Rumi
- bix6 2y agoWhy are we the only creatures who can choose that? Does a crow have no agency to be the first to food and challenge the leader or the scout who keeps watch for the others while they feast? Can a dolphin not choose to align more closely with play than rape? It seems to me that animals have much more agency than we choose to believe / allow.
- MrMcCall 2y agoThey always choose their instinct to survival; only we have a conscience and free will to choose whether to behave selflessly or selfishly. Only we can think abstractly about the needs of the group, the happiness of others.
- sorokod 2y ago> Sometimes the predators are in the ascendancy, sometimes the prey. This statement has been modeled as the "predator–prey model": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio...
- bmitc 2y ago> We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly compassionate ethos Many cetaceans' brains showcase extremely complex and large insular cortex and neocortex regions of their brain, even when compared on a relative scale to their rest of their brain compared to human brains. Additionally, the complexity and granular size of their folds are much more than human brains. It is inconceivable that some of these cetaceans are not capable of the emotions of humans. In fact, it's even a pretty strong argument that these cetaceans possess more intelligence and emotional regulation than humans.
- MrMcCall 2y agoWell, they have a different environment with a greater need for extremely close social groups, so sensitivity to emotion may, indeed, be greater than ours in some ways. That said, we have a conscience aka moral compass, a mind capapble of abstract thought and comprehension of morality, as well as a free will to choose whether or not to consider someone else's happiness in our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors. Look at all the wonderful structures we design and build, and then how awfully we treat out-groups. We are capable of so much better, but why don't people give a sh_t? I know why, and I've explained it in my comment history.