We are opposite to, harmful to Nature, but it has been purposeful by evolution
An opinion from the Internet about humanity and Nature:
“When I look at nature and humans I see humans coming from nature. Nature was first.
You wrote: “…look at how Nature works, creating, sustaining life through a selfless, altruistic, unconditionally, mutually serving cooperation, we could say that Nature resembles communism. The problem is that while all of Nature’s still, vegetative, animate parts instinctively, blindly subscribe to this balance, homeostasis, always keeping the calculations of the whole above individual calculations, human nature is very different. We are self-serving, self-justifying, subjective, and exploitative. We actually thrive at gaining, succeeding at each other’s expense.”
I would re-word this to say that humans are not different from nature in any extreme way. Maybe there are some nuances, but from the perspective of an alien observer; nature is a zero-sum game, and humans happen to be more successful at exploitation. It’s not that nature outlaws exploitation, it is just that any successful exploitation must necessarily deprive another of valuable resources. So, if we take a freeze-frame perspective at any point in time it appears as though life and death, symbiosis and parasitism, are in balance. However, if we look at the path-dependent properties of the system and how we arrived at our current situation in space-time we can see that the only way nature has any perceived balance was through death and fecundity, exploitation, and mutualism.
I must admit it is easy to succumb to the moralistic fallacy; humans destroy ecosystems, each other, other species, and the welfare of the survivors to satisfy selfish ends. Therefore, human nature is worse than all other aspects of nature. However, this would require us to ignore the fact that we came from nature and nature displays the same exploitative tendencies. The premise that nature is not exploitative would require us to ignore much of nature. Using a false premise as a support for a conclusion can only lead to dogma.
Instead, we should focus on the rapidity of human actions. Our progressive ideology requires us to fly the jet with no parachute or landing gear. Wherever we are going, it is too fast. Incremental progress balanced by much heavier conservation than the current status quo may be a practical solution. This is of course opinion, but it can be justified by the precautionary principle since the precautionary principle would prioritize survival and welfare over high-risk low reward policy.”
There is a solution to our presumed “disagreement”
First of all we can twist it in any way we want, humans do destroy nature’s balance and as a result can destroy the very planet that gave them life and sustains them, while no animal or any other part of nature has ever done that through evolution. No other creature ever goes beyond their natural habitat or efforts for its survival beyond their necessities, no other part of nature threatens the balance and homeostasis life depends on.
If any part of nature cannot settle into the natural integration if it does not flow with nature’s “circle of life” that species, that part becomes extinct. We are like cancer, consuming, existing at nature’s expense and at our own expense.
There is no point in “romanticizing” our present existence, our “hastiness, progressive development” (simply fulfilling our incessantly growing appetite for selfish pleasures) is completely pointless and aimless even from our own point of view, let alone natural evolution’s point of view. It is also utterly self-destructive as without changing course we will become extinct very soon. There are no “Hollywood solutions” since we are incompatible with Nature’s laws of integration.
Saying that we are not “evil”, this cancer-like behavior of ours has nothing to do with morality. We had no free choice about our inherent nature, we were “created” with this harmful, opposite program purposefully by Nature’s evolution, since we have a very different role in the system than any other animal, including other developed primates.
This is why we have in our otherwise natural program the addition of the “cancer-like” human ego that has been driving our unprecedented, exponential development. (Compared to chimpanzees for example that remained unchanged for millions of years we are dreaming about colonizing other planets — only to destroy them as well…).
We are the only element in nature with the potential ability to become integrated into the system like all other parts, but with an independent consciousness, objective “inner observer” ability. This is why we had to be born opposite, seemingly outside of nature, working against it, living in nature like a foreign element. This gives us our independence and free choice.
Now, if we recognize that our inherent nature will destroy us and we accept the need for change, by consciously, proactively, methodically changing, upgrading ourselves and thus reaching integration with Nature — through integrating with each other — by our own efforts, we reach our unique, unparalleled natural, evolutionary role in the system, truly becoming the peak of evolution.