Eco-Human Philosophy

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

War is not natural.

I agree with most of what you said. But war is a entirely natural phenomenon. Almost all life on this planet is territorial & have social constructs. All of nature fights over land all the time & fights over social issues within their natural community. It is entirely a natural occurrence for humans (which are animals) to war or fight.

Granted we fight over energy and religion. But replace energy with food & replace religion with a animals social hierarchy and it is quite virtually the same exact thing for us just on a higher playing field.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

I agree with most of what you said. But war is a entirely natural phenomenon. Almost all life on this planet is territorial & have social constructs. All of nature fights over land all the time & fights over social issues within their natural community. It is entirely a natural occurrence for humans (which are animals) to war or fight.

Granted we fight over energy and religion. But replace energy with food & replace religion with a animals social hierarchy and it is quite virtually the same exact thing for us just on a higher playing field.

For example idk if people know this.... but saying "animals don't have wars" to signify humans are more aggressive or destructive then nature is entirely wrong and not intelligent.

Nature fights over territory and nature fights over food & social reasons all the time. Just that we humans do it on a global consequential scale and is therefore more problematic then say wolves fighting over land or lions pack to fight over who is dominant.

We humans who are animal's simply evolved to cause greater chaos in social structures & resources on the planet overtime then any other aninal on the planet making our actions more consequential per-scale than any other life form on the planet.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

One last thing. We may tell ourselves we are above other life on this planet because we are "smarter" is totally and 100% load of garbage. Regardless of science or religion. We may have better understanding of our environment but does not make us more "above" then any other lifeform on this planet.

We live in a ecological system, we are all equals from your basic human to a whale or ant. We all play our part called life shared equally with the diverse lifeforms on this planet even if we don't see it that way....... we (lifeforms) all share this rock flying through space.

(Domesticated animals not the same, they only exist to feed us and would not exist without us naturally, this includes modern pigs, cows, sheep, or cats/dogs ect.)

 

[intel-bank]

For example idk if people know this.... but saying "animals don't have wars" to signify humans are more aggressive or destructive then nature is entirely wrong and not intelligent.

Nature fights over territory and nature fights over food & social reasons all the time. Just that we humans do it on a global consequential scale and is therefore more problematic then say wolves fighting over land or lions pack to fight over who is dominant.

Yes, but you see, when two dogs don't find it necessary to fight over territory and food, because theyve, for example, lived together and have had plenty of food.
When the animal doesn't feel like it needs to fight, most animals wont fight. Self preservation is natural and can lead to violence across the animal kingdom. But most animals still are naturally adverse to violence. Even predators don't want to fight against something when its not their food, so they don't have to.

But when I say war isn't natural, it refers to the fact that any person with empathy (which is most people) would be adverse to war if it wasn't so normalized. Kids go off and die in wars they don't understand because thats what their parents did. Thats what you do. Thats what a man does. Violence is necessary. But for the most part, war takes empathetic people having a strong reason to believe it is necessary or OK, in order to happen. And if society/parents say "there is absolutely no excuse for war", then people will be less likely to excuse it.
Of course there will always have to be some violence to keep the sociopaths in check. But fighting is very natural across the board. Wars are uniquely human.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Yes, but you see, when two dogs don't find it necessary to fight over territory and food, because theyve, for example, lived together and have had plenty of food.
When the animal doesn't feel like it needs to fight, most animals wont fight. Self preservation is natural and can lead to violence across the animal kingdom. But most animals still are naturally adverse to violence. Even predators don't want to fight against something when its not their food, so they don't have to.

But when I say war isn't natural, it refers to the fact that any person with empathy (which is most people) would be adverse to war if it wasn't so normalized. Kids go off and die in wars they don't understand because thats what their parents did. Thats what you do. Thats what a man does. Violence is necessary. But for the most part, war takes empathetic people having a strong reason to believe it is necessary or OK, in order to happen. And if society/parents say "there is absolutely no excuse for war", then people will be less likely to excuse it.
Of course there will always have to be some violence to keep the sociopaths in check. But fighting is very natural across the board. Wars are uniquely human.

Very good points.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Yes, but you see, when two dogs don't find it necessary to fight over territory and food, because theyve, for example, lived together and have had plenty of food.
When the animal doesn't feel like it needs to fight, most animals wont fight. Self preservation is natural and can lead to violence across the animal kingdom. But most animals still are naturally adverse to violence. Even predators don't want to fight against something when its not their food, so they don't have to.

But when I say war isn't natural, it refers to the fact that any person with empathy (which is most people) would be adverse to war if it wasn't so normalized. Kids go off and die in wars they don't understand because thats what their parents did. Thats what you do. Thats what a man does. Violence is necessary. But for the most part, war takes empathetic people having a strong reason to believe it is necessary or OK, in order to happen. And if society/parents say "there is absolutely no excuse for war", then people will be less likely to excuse it.
Of course there will always have to be some violence to keep the sociopaths in check. But fighting is very natural across the board. Wars are uniquely human.

One last thing. We may tell ourselves we are above other life on this planet because we are "smarter" is totally and 100% load of garbage. Regardless of science or religion. We may have better understanding of our environment but does not make us more "above" then any other lifeform on this planet.

We live in a ecological system, we are all equals from your basic human to a whale or ant. We all play our part called life shared equally with the diverse lifeforms on this planet even if we don't see it that way....... we (lifeforms) all share this rock flying through space.

(Domesticated animals not the same, they only exist to feed us and would not exist without us naturally, this includes modern pigs, cows, sheep, or cats/dogs ect.)

For example idk if people know this.... but saying "animals don't have wars" to signify humans are more aggressive or destructive then nature is entirely wrong and dumb.

Nature fights over territory and nature fights over food & social reasons all the time. Just that we humans do it on a global consequential scale and is therefore more problematic then say wolves fighting over land or lions pack to fight over who is dominant.

We humans who are animal's simply evolved to cause greater chaos in social structures & resources on the planet overtime then any other aninal on the planet making our actions more consequential per-scale than any other life form on the planet.

I agree with most of what you said. But war is a entirely natural phenomenon. Almost all life on this planet is territorial & have social constructs. All of nature fights over land all the time & fights over social issues within their natural community. It is entirely a natural occurrence for humans (which are animals) to war or fight.

Granted we fight over energy and religion. But replace energy with food & replace religion with a animals social hierarchy and it is quite virtually the same exact thing for us just on a higher playing field.

Okay so all of that is really off topic. What should I name the new thread for this conversation about human relations with nature & animals?

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Okay so all of that is really off topic. What should I name the new thread for this conversation about human relations with nature & animals?

Eco-Human philosophy?

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Eco-Human philosophy?

Love it.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Humans rule, nature, get in line!
That's the way I see it. Nature is there for us to bend to our will. We have the ability to change the climate of this planet. We can erect cities, burn millions of acres of forest etc...
Whether good or bad you can't deny that man certainly affects nature.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Humans rule, nature, get in line!
That's the way I see it. Nature is there for us to bend to our will. We have the ability to change the climate of this planet. We can erect cities, burn millions of acres of forest etc...
Whether good or bad you can't deny that man certainly affects nature.

My rebuttal:

We live in a ecological system, we are all equals from your basic human to a whale or ant. We all play our part called life shared equally with the diverse lifeforms on this planet even if we don't see it that way....... we (lifeforms) all share this rock flying through space.

One last thing. We may tell ourselves we are above other life on this planet because we are "smarter" is totally and 100% load of garbage. Regardless of science or religion. We may have better understanding of our environment but does not make us more "above" then any other lifeform on this planet.

 

[Dr Arthur]

Have been a lot of good points raised but humans are basically a smart animal and as such is part of nature and ecology. Humans are not beyond but are part of nature.

 

[OReid]

Not natural? Tell that to a 10000yr of tubal and aboriginal fighting over territory or resources.
The claim that nations and groups fighting over oil or land or religion are some contrived occurrence of modern man are disproven repeatedly ad nausium.
The ONLY difference is the scale.
20th century men lament the death of the Native American horse culture of the great plains. But ignore the FACT that the Lakota and Comanche grew their nations with their mastery of horse culture and warfare. In doing so the fought subdued enslaved or drove dozens of other native tribes from their translate homeland of the plains.
They dominated the plains because they were good at adapting and using a new technology to subdue or drive others out of their way.
They were not the noble savage who only took from the land what they needed. It meant more of their children survived, that they lived with less hunger. That they had hides to stay warm in during the winter. That they could enjoy life a little more.
Can humans do better absolutely, but don’t expect some continued path to enlightenment. Because it will not happen.
Their is no intergalactic federation of planets that is going to save us from ourselves or allow us to join with them when we have shown enough promise.
There is just mastery of resources and exploration of them in a way that allows more of your children to reach adulthood, or less hunger or more security from attack.

You can argue how those factors can be used and directed to maximize those minimal demands on a culture. But denying them only sets you up to be the next subdued culture or nation.