Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
U-Know! Forum »
the 'it' in bullshit
Log In to post a reply

122 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: Philosophicus
Sep 22, 2003, 21:52
Well see how easy it is to read things into someone else's posts! Never pays to presume things do it? ;-)

Very thought-provoking what you said.

My take is that "nature" involved "evolution" which means organisms attempting to adapt to their (always changing) environment as efficiently as possible. That may or may not mean what you call "progress" towards some "higher" state of being.

Basically animals (humans included) are instinctively driven to reproduce as much as possible. And we've done a great job of it by reducing mortality and getting better at producing food on a finite amount of land, etc. Technology and "evolution", "progress" whatever are basically all in the service of growing the population. This is "natural."

Now of course you could argue that we've reached the point where we can't keep "progressing" without it being counter-productive: wars, plagues and pollution will wipe out what took so long to build up, maybe it was all for naught.

But of course "nature" plays no favorites with the human species -- after we're gone there will be cockroaches and bacteria, and life forms will continue to evolve into new "species."

Maybe "humans" will become extinct and only whatever-evolves-after-us will remain (in fact that's what I think will ultimately happen.)

I guess I see "nature" as simply "life." (It's also a synonym for "god" understood in a non-religious way.)

Which brings up the individual vs. the collective again . . . individuals vary, that's what makes "evolution" work. We can argue "individual" issues, but things that effect everybody (like "nature") are almost not worth debating (I mean we can discuss "what are we talking about?" but not "what can we do about it?" -- we can't do nuthin' "to" nature.)
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index