vixstile

"many more are born than can be provided for and survive."

There aren't enough resources to to feed every animal that is born. Therefor many must die.

And if "every birth, there is exactly 1 death" Natural Selection certainly wouldn't work, would it?

Mageth

Yes. You can hold anything in awe without worshiping it. But i'm talking about worshiping.

Yes, you were, and I was talking about not worshipping. I don't need anything to worship.

Life isn't required for these

Life is required to recognize and wonder at them.

Well...are we a "part" of nature or did we "emerge" from nature? Or did we think we "emerged" from nature just to find out that we are very much still a "part" of nature?

You're misinterpreting the term. The universe emerged from a singularity, the galaxies emerged from the universe, the solar system emerged from the Milky Way galaxy, earthlife emerged from the earth, we emerged from earthlife, and our consciousness of the universe and nature, our awareness of our emergence, emerged from our brain. Emergence of complexity, self-organization, is a property of the universe. All the universe is nature, and we are part of the universe, and part of nature. Nature includes all the complexity that emerges in nature.

Yea, humans are the only animals that can truly appreciate how screwed up our lot in life really is.

Umm, or not. I don't look at life as being "screwed up". You gotta play the hand you're dealt; you can either enjoy the game or be miserable. I guess it's all in how you look at things.

Fortunately as humans we have the best chance of breaking out of the "brutal cycle of death and suffering" and greatly improve our situation. More than any other a creature, we have the ability to crete a more pleasant utilitarian word.

Or, better yet, we can learn how to enjoy, care for, and make the best of the world we've already got.

Therefor I would choose to worship MAN before I would ever choose to worship this horrible thing "nature" I see people raving about.

I choose not to worship either. I respect, wonder at, and am in awe of both nature and man. BTW, since we are part of nature, everything we do is part of nature, and we are totally dependent on nature, we can't be separated from nature. Nature is not "horrible"; it is us, all we do, and the earth (or possibly in the future, any other planet) that supports us.

TO MAN!

Well, I might be guilty of occasionally worshipping women.

Mageth

And if "every birth, there is exactly 1 death" Natural Selection certainly wouldn't work, would it?

Umm, are you serious? Think about it for a minute; for every birth, there has to be exactly one death. Like someone else said, otherwise some creatures that were born would have to die more than once.

The proper way to say what I think you mean is that for every creature that lives to reproduce, there are many more creatures that die before being able to reproduce.

Mageth

There aren't enough resources to to feed every animal that is born. Therefor many must die.

Actually, I bet more animals that are born go to feed other animals than starve to death. That's a cold, hard, inescapable fact of all animal life, including humans (though perhaps some day in the future we will learn to synthesize food); all animal life lives by killing and eating other life (whether plant or animal).

vixstile

Nor do I

Actually a sentient mind is required to recognize and wonder at them.

Sorry, I alway took emerge to mean come out: to appear out of or from behind something. Like if I emerge from my bedroom, I am no longer in my bedroom.

So, even if i see that my situation could be better than it is, I shouldn't try to fix it because that was the hand I was dealt?

How is that better than trying to improve what we get. I'm not saying we shouldn't "learn how to enjoy, care for, and make the best of the world we've already got", but why stop there?

As do I

That is true if you're simply defining Nature as everything that exists.

Personally I don't see the value in showing awe toward everything that exists. I choose to be a little more selective.

vixstile

I'm still not understanding where you're getting this "some would have to die more than once" stuff

If there is a population of twenty animals, and fifteen die, the remaining five would then reproduce bring back the population to twenty, and then subsequently followed by the deaths of another fifteen, and so on and so forth.

Why would there have to be one death for every birth? What If I find a way to instantly clone an individual in a mater of seconds, and then produce a million clones in some short period of time? Does that mean a million people just suddenly die? Or what if I kill a million people? Does that mean that a million people will be born as a result?

[edit: that is going to have to be it for tonight. I'll think more about this in the morning]

Peter Kirby

Those same million people will themselves eventually die, with one death of the clone for every one clone birth.

Those same million people that died had first been born, with one birth of each person, each of which you killed.

A living being always comes to life once and ends its life once.

best,
Peter Kirby

Mageth

Actually a sentient mind is required to recognize and wonder at them.

Well, technically, yes, but the only thing we know sentient minds emerge from is life, and the only thing we know life emerges from (at this time) is the earth, and so on...

Sorry, I alway took emerge to mean come out: to appear out of or from behind something. Like if I emerge from my bedroom, I am no longer in my bedroom.

A wave emerges from the sea, but is still part of the sea. A mountain emerges from the plain, a tree from the mountain, a branch from the tree, and a leaf from the branch. Or look at some fractals. Think of it that way.

So, even if i see that my situation could be better than it is, I shouldn't try to fix it because that was the hand I was dealt?

No; I'm not talking about individual experience here - of course one can and in most cases should try to improve your particular situation if you're not satisfied. Hopefully, one would have enough compassion to try and do the same for others.

What I'm talking about is when we start trying to change the basic rules of the game, e.g. the life cycle of birth, life and death, or the environment of the earth. Such can lead to unexpected, and perhaps undesirable, consequences, and any fundamental changes must be taken with extreme caution and forethought.

It's by no means certain that humans would be happier, or that the world would be better, if changes to such fundamental processes are made. So, in my opinion, the best road to happiness and fulfillment lies within this model of life which from which we've emerged. Actually, it lies within each of us. External improvements are no guarantee of happiness and fulfillment. Such is an inner journey for each of us.

Note that I'm not saying that improvements to the general human condition shouldn't be pursued. Of course they should.

How is that better than trying to improve what we get. I'm not saying we shouldn't "learn how to enjoy, care for, and make the best of the world we've already got", but why stop there?

See above. I'd add that I kinda like old Mother Nature the way she is. Further, anything we do should be done with the realization that we're not the only species on this planet, and I consider it our responsibility to care for our fellow wayfarers.

That is true if you're simply defining Nature as everything that exists.

Well, everything that exists is of Nature. Name me one thing that exists that is not of Nature, has not emerged from Nature.

Personally I don't see the value in showing awe toward everything that exists. I choose to be a little more selective.

Well, I didn't exactly say that. But I would say that there is nothing in Nature that cannot inspire awe and wonder at some level.

Ab_Normal

back to the OP: I'd be some sort of Taoist/Shintoist "there's a spirit in everything" worshipper. I'd have to do more research first.

vixstile

Blah! I see my mistake now (give me a break. I was tired ). I was comparing births to deaths when, what I was trying to say, is that far more die than live.

For example:

Let us say that on average a female Zebra gives birth about 10 times in its life time. If those 10 offspring where to live a full life and thus produce 10 offspring, we would quickly have a lot of Zebras running around . Since we aren't currently over run with Zebras, we can only assume that on average 8 or 9 of those 10 Zebras must die.
Don't call me out on how bad my numbers are. I know they are pretty lame. I just hope they're good enough to get my point across.

I take this to be true for pretty much all species. All species produce enough offspring that , if all those offspring lived long enough to reproduce, we would see some serious population growth.

Fortunately most things that are born quickly die.

Or whatever . I don't want to have to think about this anymore to day.