Nature is “brutal”, lawful on one hand, while benevolent, life-giving in the other hand…

Opinion from the Internet about adapting Humanity to the laws, the balance of Nature’s perfect system:

“I think you have a romantic notion about Nature: she is not so placid; rather brutal I would say. It’s survival of the fittest. Humans may have become too kind and accommodating in their attitudes. Actually, when you look at the world, at the current time, I would say the common person has more freedom to choose his/her destiny. But there are too many people on the planet, especially if we all want to live as Westerners, ie have as much as we want in every respect. It’s clear we are too numerous, and though there have many smaller battles, maybe only a Third World War will reduce the population adequately. That’s not what I want, but what else can be done in time? (Humans are polluting this world at a horrendous rate.)”

I hope I have a romantic side in relation to music, movies, and my wife. But since I consider myself an empirical scientist, researcher of Nature, I don’t think I have a romantic notion about Nature itself.

First of all, I agree with you, Nature is “brutal”, meaning that it is a strictly deterministic, lawful system, it is not like a Human judge one can appeal to or even bribe, influence. In Nature we either know and follow the laws, it we don’t and then we need to bear the consequences.

But beyond that Nature is the most benevolent system that creates and nurtures life.

The notion of “survival of the fittest” is misinterpreted and distorted by us to justify our own egotistic, exploitative behavior, where the “strongest bully” prevails - at least prevailed so far.

In Nature, the fittest is the one that can integrate most effectively, after all, Nature’s system is integral, interdependent. Its “circle of life” is beautifully arranged, all elements from the still, vegetative, and animal layers mutually complementing each other.

If truly the cruelest, aggressive creatures had the advantage of survival, probably only the most vicious dinosaurs would have survived eating all others…until they had only each other to eat.

But only Humans behave that way driven by our inherently self-serving, self-justifying, individualistic, and exploitative nature.

In relation to the claim of overpopulation, it is true that we have saturated the planet, we are depleting its resources. But not because of the number of people in existence, but by the lifestyle, “footprint” of the people. It is the excessive overconsuming, the multiple cars, houses, material possessions, extreme pollution that causes the damage.

It is the lifestyle that draws everybody into the cities and the hoarding of possessions everybody pursues which makes us feel crowded.

We could help Earth to support even double the number of people we have today or even more, provided we ourselves adapt ourselves to Nature’s balance and homeostasis.

If we become part of the perfect “circle of life”, by building an integrated Human society based on mutually responsible, mutually complementing connections, cooperation, while scale our lifestyle back to within the optimal parameters of healthy, modern, natural necessities and available resources, facilitating a fair distribution among all, we would find a completely different, qualitatively much higher collective existence partnering Nature.

In that case, we would become part of the constantly recharging, self-sustaining system which never runs out of resources, energy. This is all achievable here and now through the right, purposeful, and highly practical “global, integral” education system.

(Finally, I just note, that if you truly think that the only solution is “culling Humanity” through a 3rd, probably nuclear world war, then you are much, much crueler then Nature’s system that does everything to sustain life. Moreover, where is your guarantee that you would be among the survivors?!)