Convenience is not better

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Anaru, May 21, 2010.

  1. I came across a movie called Akira Kurosawa's Dreams and there's this part where a man comes across an older man that says that people think convenience is better, ignoring what truly matters (nature). He then goes to say that people worship inventions, and the scientists that create them condone nature. Don't you agree that all of our inventions, from the television to the computer, just distract from nature? Without these, people would be enjoying nature more often instead of sitting inside all the time. And in the end, our inventions like plastic and chemicals destroy nature. All these conveniences just destroy what we should be paying more attention to, nature.

    [ame=]YouTube - Village of the Watermills 1 of 2[/ame]
  2. Sometimes I think about how far removed from nature most people are and it makes me depressed. We worry about too much bullshit in life that is unnecessary in my opinion.

    A simple life is a nice life.
  3. it's because as technology grows it starts out as a "brute force" style but as we learn more and more we learn that nature has done the same things we are trying to do in a more effective way. Fear not, look at the things we are creating now, we are heading towards devices and other tech. that is more in tune with nature in that it has less of an impact if not helps foster nature to grow in ways that will further benefit humans so we don't need tech.

    watch the video's on, more and more of them are about how scientists and engineers are using examples from nature to build things so that it can be done cheaper, easier and with less overall impact on our environment.
  4. If you could meaningfully differentiate between nature and technology, sure.
  5. nature made the vines, bamboo and wood he was using for the waterwheel. The waterwheel, his hat, clothes, and the lamps are all the result of technology.
  6. So they're made by a natural process, formed by a natural being, and somehow they're not natural? My point is that the distinction between the two are 'arbitrary' in a reductionist sense, and that what's important isn't the connection to nature, but a connection to something 'real' and not arbitration on top of arbitration, like human society.

    Gettin' awfully spiritual and philosophic in hurr
  7. I don't get it, then wouldn't everything we humans make be, by default natural thus we can never not be more connected to nature?

    I think the OP had the idea that up till now (and even still in some sense) people lived a life that was balanced by what nature (that thing that is outside of humans control) could provide. Personally I think we are slowly making our way to where the technology we make will make nature more fruitful (as in our trash will help fertilize the plants that grow and feed us etc.) rather than pretend we are "outside" of it like we do now.
  8. Exactly. I guess this is a definition thing, but I never understood the disconnect between technology and nature.

    Precisely. Living in harmony with our environment (as opposed to nature) is the important thing, pragmatically speaking. It's a give and take thing. Instead of using our intelligence to strip everything to our sole benefit, acting like a virus, we should live in a long term fashion, considering our limits.
  9. I think if you look at the long term trend of humans we are always heading in that direction. We have always had a dislike of the dirty technologies even though we used them. Also it just so happens that the dirtiest tech.'s are usually the most inefficient and thus get worked on. It's only recently that we have had enough of a grasp of the science behind things that we can now start to look at how nature is doing the things we are trying to do. Also the efficiency of our systems are getting closer and closer to natures systems and we are coming to a point where in order to make something more efficient we have to model our systems after nature because after all, that is are greatest example of a system that stand the test of time.
  10. Technology and nature can live in harmony. After all, technology is part of nature, as Combatwombat pointed out. The only thing that should really be preserved is the environment in which we are able to survive. The human species just need to evolve into a higher conscious being; A conscious being created by the union of conscious beings. Then we can truly be one with our world; Then we can truly appreciate the brothers that inhabit this 'body' with us. Appreciate the true vitality of their survival.

    "A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet."
    -Carl Sagan
  11. I agree that people ignore what truly matters, but I don't believe what truly matters is nature, it is the self.

    Convenience allows people to escape, to avoid self reflection, to avoid growth. If every day of your life was as hard and difficult as the hardest day in your life, you would be a much better person for learning how to cope with such difficult experiences.

    Some Brave New World shit is going on today...
  12. Yeah that makes sense...respecting nature isnt really a specific hobby of mine but I can understand why convenience could be replacing the role of nature in the human society....

    But even my pastor drives a big lavish car, facebooking on a mac, neat little futuristic house...According to him God rewards you with would seem.

    So maybe it's okay :)

Share This Page