Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
are we stupid?
Mother Nature deniers are stupid.
How dare you insult my mother nature?!? I love mother nature. I love nature more than my life. You are alive because of mother nature. Be thankful to mother nature. Some stupid humans just hurt my mother nature which I seriously don't like. I am seriously saying, don't insult or hurt nature. Remember one thing, your alive because of nature/
@niko-schach said in #11:
> Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
You do realize that since you're technically a part of nature, you're basically saying you're stupid as well.
> Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
You do realize that since you're technically a part of nature, you're basically saying you're stupid as well.
@niko-schach said in #10:
> Well, Mr. Pushwood, why don't you and your fan club suggest better answers to my two key questions regarding the most significant difference between humans and animals
The idea that humans are significantly different from other animal species is a huge mistake to begin with.
> Well, Mr. Pushwood, why don't you and your fan club suggest better answers to my two key questions regarding the most significant difference between humans and animals
The idea that humans are significantly different from other animal species is a huge mistake to begin with.
@niko-schach said in #11:
> Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
There's 350,000 species of beetles.
It's stupid to make that many beetles. I mean, WHO NEEDS 350.000 different kinds of beetles?
> Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
There's 350,000 species of beetles.
It's stupid to make that many beetles. I mean, WHO NEEDS 350.000 different kinds of beetles?
But OK another example for humans.
Out jaws are not big enough to hold our teeth. This is why we get wisdom teeth that often have to been removed.
This design is retarded. Either make the jaw bigger or remove the teeth what don't fit in. Instead we're designed for failure.
Out jaws are not big enough to hold our teeth. This is why we get wisdom teeth that often have to been removed.
This design is retarded. Either make the jaw bigger or remove the teeth what don't fit in. Instead we're designed for failure.
@salmon_rushdie said in #2:
> What is the difference between nature and humanity then?
The way I see it is: Nature doesn't guarantee the existance of humanity, but how much is Environmentalism worth?
Humanity, given its choice, and like setting a thermostat, has the options of being more:
1. cost effective by going with the flow of sustainable nature, not changing Nature much, but rather adapting to it with Greener like policies. It's more about having Nature co-exist with life, "camping" with it, rather than the futile effort or life changing nature for a different vision based on human desire.
2. comfortable by going against the flow of sustainable nature, by crafting it to fit human desires with Freer Market like policies. It's more about changing Nature to artifically create the habitat we want, even at the expense of pollution towards nature. This thermostat of comfort costs people extra diligence at work, as well as energy consumption, just to maintain the comfortable shopping mall like experiences.
So, what makes more sense? Knowing that we can't defeat nature in our efforts... nature will always exist; how comfortable should we exist in our climate, so that fighting against sustainable nature doesn't lead to a complete defeat with the rising costs for people to prove their worth in such a system, in the long-run?
> What is the difference between nature and humanity then?
The way I see it is: Nature doesn't guarantee the existance of humanity, but how much is Environmentalism worth?
Humanity, given its choice, and like setting a thermostat, has the options of being more:
1. cost effective by going with the flow of sustainable nature, not changing Nature much, but rather adapting to it with Greener like policies. It's more about having Nature co-exist with life, "camping" with it, rather than the futile effort or life changing nature for a different vision based on human desire.
2. comfortable by going against the flow of sustainable nature, by crafting it to fit human desires with Freer Market like policies. It's more about changing Nature to artifically create the habitat we want, even at the expense of pollution towards nature. This thermostat of comfort costs people extra diligence at work, as well as energy consumption, just to maintain the comfortable shopping mall like experiences.
So, what makes more sense? Knowing that we can't defeat nature in our efforts... nature will always exist; how comfortable should we exist in our climate, so that fighting against sustainable nature doesn't lead to a complete defeat with the rising costs for people to prove their worth in such a system, in the long-run?
@niko-schach said in #11:
> Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
Oldie, but goldie.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ
> Well, Raspberry yoghurt, could you please give a single example of nature's stupidity?
Oldie, but goldie.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.