A concept called Nature

Hi Sraj:

> It is very unfortunate that human societies have more or less
>ganged up against Nature. Our Sciences, our Religions, and our
>Modern economic systems have deliberately chosen to misrepresent
>Nature to gain their own private ends, in the end sacrificing the
>welfare of human beings.
>

I believe the problem is not religion but which religion. Living in
South America I know the way of thinking of American Indians.

In theirs religion the center of everything is Mother Earth. There
are variations to the theme but it goes like this: Earth is our
Mother and there is also a supreme God that is the father that
sometimes is identified with the Sun. Now, Natives believe they are
not the OWNERS of the land but they are the landlords of it and they
have a RESPONSABILITY with the land as well.

Land is alive, and full of spirits. And land sustain people.
Nurtures them like a Mother does. You kill the mother and the child
dies.

Native American cosmology is very simple indeed. Land is our Mother
and they believe it literally. We live in her womb and when we die
we return to her. All rituals and lesser gods turn around the
concept of Earth and Nature.

Natives believe in the equilibrium with Mother Earth, something
similar to the chinese Tao phylosophy, but perhaps less abtract.

In the case of Jew-Christian religion, God put Man in charge for his
own benefit (what a mistake). God ordered man to reproduce like
rabbit, and also give him permission to kill all the animals and
turn down every tree for his enjoyment.

Everything the God of the Bible says in Genesis goes against
ecology. No wonder the world is in the shape it is today. I don't
know very much about the religions of India but perhaps follow a
similar path.

And scientists could be very smart individuals but like a group have
behaved like blinds. People know scientists have participated in
lots of crimes against humanity, starting from the development of
poisson gas for the battefields and for the holocaust.

Also, people know scientist used to be very selfish people, and that
believed only they had the reason. But they did not foresee the
ecological disasters, Talydomine, mercury poisson, chernobil, the
population explosion an many other problems they helped to produce.
Yes, these days the very credibility of scientists is very low.

People believe more in Greenpeace these day than in the scientific
establishement.

Regards,

Omar Vega

>

> Science and Nature where do they stand with respect to one another?
>
> SCIENCE (Universal Set)
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * N N N N * * * *
> * * * * * * * * N N N N * * * * NATURE
> * * * * * * * * N N N N * * * * ( Sub Set: As
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * applicable
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * to planet
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Earth)
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> What we learn in science can be considered as being part of an
UNIVERSAL SET, whereas, what we learn under NATURE (Nature here is
meant to represent only the environment we have on planet Earth),
can be considered to be a subset. Though normally the Universal set
will represent greater complexity, here we have the interesting
situation where the Subset is actually more complex, because it
represents not just inanimate science, but science resulting in
combinations so complex that the system literally and figuratively
has a life of its own. Nature, here, is not amenable to normal
scientific interpretations.
>
> To understand this mystery let us consider another set and subset.
Let the Universal set be all possible computer programmes,
(specifically the principles which make all computer programmes
possible) and let the subset be The Windows Operating System.
Knowing the principles, we are in a position to write computer
programmes of all kinds. But this does not give us the capability to
actually meddle with the Windows Operating System. We have no option
but to respect the individuals who created the Windows Operating
System, and learn to use the system within the format in which it
was designed.
>
> Capitalizing on the knowledge of the four physical interactions,
gravity, electromagnetism, weak interaction and strong interaction
(which scientists are labouring to coalesce into one grand unified
theory), it should be theoretically possible to anticipate a child's
gurgling and cooing sound - in practice it will be practically
impossible to do so. Investigations into science are welcome, but
when science is applied to the welfare of human beings, it is
important to ask the question, does this new invention in anyway
contravene natural laws (in harmony with nature). It is not
sufficient to just ask "is it based on science"?
>
> The contempt in which Nature is held by both Sciences and
Religions can be partly gauged by the present debate on Intelligent
Design. More or less both the factions agree by now, I think, that
it is practically impossible to create even a butterfly by shooting
in the dark - depending on random mutations and natural selection
alone. Yet it will be a long time before these two groups - who are
presently spending their time splitting hairs - acknowledge the
inescapable truth that NATURE HERSELF IS INTELLIGENT and can herself
direct evolution. When a stone falls, we have to brush up on
Newton's laws and pull out a computer to accurately predict its
trajectory. Nature does not have to do this - the stone will just
fall! The scientists are not going to agree that Nature is
intelligent because if they do, they will have to acknowledge that
there is an entity smarter than them. How can they agree to such
apostasy? That these intelligent people are themselves created by
nature is of course irrelevant!
>
> The Religious factions are not going to agree that NATURE IS
INTELLIGENT, because intelligence is reserved for God and cannot be
rationed out to Nature. The idea that God went out of his way to
make humans in his own image is required to bolster the fiction of
god-like supremacy of humans, so that they can go around doing every
unreasonable thing in the book. Such as, looking on with equanimity
as a large number of life forms are permanently extinguished by the
irresponsible increase in human population - something no religious
group has protested against so far. (For the Indian religions it may
not be a big deal to accept God and Nature as being congruent, but
for the Judaic religions it will be a bitter pill to swallow. It
grieves me to make a direct attack on religions; but religions carry
enormous power and prestige and have large followings; many of the
problems we face today would not have been there had our religions
been more proactive. ).
>
> As we stand back and take an inventory, of what we call scientific
progress, where do we stand at the moment?
>
> Viewed Independently the sciences have much to cheer about. We
could easily assign a score of 9 out of 10 to the physical sciences -
the type of science that gets us to the Moon. Medical sciences, the
mind boggling advances they have made could also be assigned an 8.
Agricultural sciences, may be a 7. The aggregate of these three
would get us a winning score of 8.
>
> But wait a minute. When we see that humans are sick as never
before, most of them would perform badly in any physical
competition, and when we factor in the great damage done to the
environment by the current agricultural sciences a different picture
emerges. The scoring now changes to physical sciences 9, Medical
sciences a poor 4 and so also the Agricultural sciences, 4. It is
not worth taking an aggregate of this.
>
> Wait another minute, we use our knowledge of the physical sciences
to alter our environment without knowing what environment is suited
for humans. In this context we must change the scores once again,
Physical sciences 4, Medical sciences 4, Agricultural sciences 4. I
have been generous in this scoring. This scoring does not take into
account the nonlinearity that exists in most physical systems; if
you were to go for a walk in the desert without carrying water, you
would end up dead. Period.
>
> The cushy life we enjoy on this planet is made possible, more by
the bounty of Nature, than by any extraordinary application of
intelligence on our part. In this deliberate attempt to denigrate
nature, we ourselves are the final losers, as we risk losing the
compass which could direct our actions; and also actions of those
who will come 500 years hence (who will sorely need something sane
to pattern their lives around). When all is said and done, there is
no great difference between us and monkeys in the jungle. We are
constrained by natural laws, however much we may think otherwise. In
many areas of human welfare our sciences are going to get stuck in
the mud unless we view ourselves as being part of this larger system
we call Nature - and attempt to understand her mysteries, treating
her with profound respect at all times.