What is more beautiful: Man-made or Nature-Made?

[dratsab]

Other animals have no purpose? What's that supposed to mean?

Well, I guess it may reduce to circular reasoning if we don't define our axioms/premises. I think purpose is defined by conscious beings and thus only man has that right now. If other animals evolve to our level of consciousness, then they can be considered in the picture. As it stands right now though, the only purpose animals have is to serve man. I am not advocating animal cruelty, but rather that if an animal is inadvertently wiped off the planet by man it is only a natural evolution of nature and it was that animal's time to go. The only time man should be worried about an animal perishing is if that animal or organism is necessary to man's survival. Meaning that ultimately it is still man that matters not the animal. The reason we worry about global warming isn't for the Earth's sake, but for man's sake because he needs the Earth. The perishing of the tree isn't the problem, but the damage it will cause to man if the tree is to go. Ohh, and since we are all posting pictures of beautiful things, I will lay this down:



Eat your heart out nature.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not withstanding that man is a product of nature, cough.

I believe that the products of man are more beautiful than that made by the chance happenings of nature, but I am a sucker for waterfalls.

I agree with "The Nature Boys, and Girls!"



"Just a hint, of the beauty! If only we could see it in it's totality, inside out and outside in, all at once?"

Earth(r).jpg

"Click the photo attachment above for a larger version"

[WanderingLands]

Dratsab, looking at your posts, it looks like you are ignorant of the true beauty of Nature and the negative consequences of human civilization when it starts abusing the abundance that Nature has to offer. Your reasons for chosing man-made products over nature are very childish, and you come off really as a guy who is really pompous. That, my friend, shows that you're views on man vs nature and your given reasons are faalicious; it's because it does not show care or conscience for Nature, and shows your hostility to other persons that disagree with you.

The moral of the story is to not bite off the hand that feeds you. That means to not take advaantage or exploit nature for your selfish wants and desires. That's causation, and that always has to take it's course no matter what, if you know what I mean.

[thedoc]

I think purpose is defined by conscious beings and thus only man has that right now. If other animals evolve to our level of consciousness, then they can be considered in the picture. As it stands right now though, the only purpose animals have is to serve man.
Eat your heart out nature.

Well that didn't take long. Now I need to go and update my ignore list.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As it stands right now though, the only purpose animals have is to serve man. I am not advocating animal cruelty, but rather that if an animal is inadvertently wiped off the planet by man it is only a natural evolution of nature and it was that animal's time to go.

That's because you obviously have tunnel vision, You can't see the forest for the trees, or rather, you can't see the life, for the self.

We here on planet earth are not actually individuals, some of us unenlightened just seem to think so. In truth, the life on Planet Earth is in fact a biosphere, a symbiosis, (an ecosystem), it is one organism, that has been evolving for billions of years, the strength of it all is included in all it's branches of diversity, a little pruning isn't so bad, but if man fucks with too much, the scale shall tip, ensuring his self annihilation, which wouldn't be so bad, considering the extinction of the unenlightened, purposeful in their self indulgent intent, at all others expense.

We are currently on that edge, where the exact tipping point is, no man can know for sure. I for one save gambling for marbles, at bubblegum stakes.

The most prominent theory on the disappearance of the ancient peoples of Easter Island, is a lesson indeed worth noting, at least for those truly wise.

[thedoc]

The most prominent theory on the disappearance of the ancient peoples of Easter Island, is a lesson indeed worth noting, at least for those truly wise.

Some think (myself included) believe that overpopulation was the problem. I will assume that you have seen a reproduction of a Moai with the eyes and hat in place. Most of them faced inland in order to frighten and control the population.

[Blaggard]

Other animals have no purpose? What's that supposed to mean?

Well, I guess it may reduce to circular reasoning if we don't define our axioms/premises. I think purpose is defined by conscious beings and thus only man has that right now. If other animals evolve to our level of consciousness, then they can be considered in the picture. As it stands right now though, the only purpose animals have is to serve man. I am not advocating animal cruelty, but rather that if an animal is inadvertently wiped off the planet by man it is only a natural evolution of nature and it was that animal's time to go. The only time man should be worried about an animal perishing is if that animal or organism is necessary to man's survival. Meaning that ultimately it is still man that matters not the animal. The reason we worry about global warming isn't for the Earth's sake, but for man's sake because he needs the Earth. The perishing of the tree isn't the problem, but the damage it will cause to man if the tree is to go. Ohh, and since we are all posting pictures of beautiful things, I will lay this down:



Eat your heart out nature.

Why is it whenever you ask an American to post something beautiful they post a sky scraper laden scene, do you not realise that sky scrapers are perhaps one of the ugliest blots on another wise decent cities horizon.

Give me a nice Cathedral or a rennaissance bridge any day over those 20th century eye sores.



Now that's a cityscape with some character.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Other animals have no purpose? What's that supposed to mean?

Well, I guess it may reduce to circular reasoning if we don't define our axioms/premises. I think purpose is defined by conscious beings and thus only man has that right now. If other animals evolve to our level of consciousness, then they can be considered in the picture. As it stands right now though, the only purpose animals have is to serve man. I am not advocating animal cruelty, but rather that if an animal is inadvertently wiped off the planet by man it is only a natural evolution of nature and it was that animal's time to go. The only time man should be worried about an animal perishing is if that animal or organism is necessary to man's survival. Meaning that ultimately it is still man that matters not the animal. The reason we worry about global warming isn't for the Earth's sake, but for man's sake because he needs the Earth. The perishing of the tree isn't the problem, but the damage it will cause to man if the tree is to go. Ohh, and since we are all posting pictures of beautiful things, I will lay this down:



Eat your heart out nature.

Why is it whenever you ask an American to post something beautiful they post a sky scraper laden scene, do you not realise that sky scrapers are perhaps one of the ugliest blots on another wise decent cities horizon.

Give me a nice Cathedral or a rennaissance bridge any day over those 20th century eye sores.



Now that's a cityscape with some character.

That's because they have no class or taste.

[Blaggard]

I don't think it's that it's just they don't know any better I mean look at the White house it's a beautiful building and yet the Americans never post picture of that just of sky scraper laden scenes, there is nothing beautiful about a sky scraper it is a functional building meant to conserve space. It was not designed to be intrinsically good looking it just is.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't think it's that it's just they don't know any better I mean look at the White house it's a beautiful building and yet the Americans never post picture of that just of sky scraper laden scenes, there is nothing beautiful about a sky scraper it is a functional building meant to conserve space. It was not designed to be intrinsically good looking it just is.

They have no class or taste now, that's not to say they never did. I find the empire state building beautiful. I love the art deco style. The twin towers were incredibly ugly. No shape at all, just two rectangles.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Other animals have no purpose? What's that supposed to mean?

Well, I guess it may reduce to circular reasoning if we don't define our axioms/premises. I think purpose is defined by conscious beings and thus only man has that right now. If other animals evolve to our level of consciousness, then they can be considered in the picture. As it stands right now though, the only purpose animals have is to serve man. I am not advocating animal cruelty, but rather that if an animal is inadvertently wiped off the planet by man it is only a natural evolution of nature and it was that animal's time to go. The only time man should be worried about an animal perishing is if that animal or organism is necessary to man's survival. Meaning that ultimately it is still man that matters not the animal. The reason we worry about global warming isn't for the Earth's sake, but for man's sake because he needs the Earth. The perishing of the tree isn't the problem, but the damage it will cause to man if the tree is to go. Ohh, and since we are all posting pictures of beautiful things, I will lay this down:



Eat your heart out nature.

Why is it whenever you ask an American to post something beautiful they post a sky scraper laden scene, do you not realise that sky scrapers are perhaps one of the ugliest blots on another wise decent cities horizon.

Give me a nice Cathedral or a rennaissance bridge any day over those 20th century eye sores.



Now that's a cityscape with some character.

Personally I love those cathedrals with flying buttresses, works of art I tell you, works of art!

But stop the American bashing. I was born there, and live there, so I guess by some peoples definitions I am one, yet I hate sky scrapers, and prefer ancient architecture. I'd prefer a log cabin over a sky scraper any day, for me it's wood, stone and earth tones, screw concrete, and plastic.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But stop the American bashing. I was born there, and live there, so I guess by some peoples definitions I am one, yet I hate sky scrapers, and prefer ancient architecture. I'd prefer a log cabin over a sky scraper any day, for me it's wood, stone and earth tones, screw concrete, and plastic.

I suppose you have to go by the overall impression you give to the rest of the world. You bash enough countries, so suck it up!

[SpheresOfBalance]

The most prominent theory on the disappearance of the ancient peoples of Easter Island, is a lesson indeed worth noting, at least for those truly wise.

Some think (myself included) believe that overpopulation was the problem. I will assume that you have seen a reproduction of a Moai with the eyes and hat in place. Most of them faced inland in order to frighten and control the population.

Yes I was speaking of a theory that seems to have now fallen out of popularity, where the religious belief system, of two opposing camps of thought, requiring the building of statues, in their need to out do the other camp, used up all the trees, relied on for food and other things, namely canoes, so as to be able to leave Easter Island for another one to again deforest, and thus make unlivable, so they turned to cannibalism, down to the last person, that then starved to death!

[SpheresOfBalance]

But stop the American bashing. I was born there, and live there, so I guess by some peoples definitions I am one, yet I hate sky scrapers, and prefer ancient architecture. I'd prefer a log cabin over a sky scraper any day, for me it's wood, stone and earth tones, screw concrete, and plastic.

I suppose you have to go by the overall impression you give to the rest of the world. You bash enough countries, so suck it up!

Screw you, never happened, point out any post of mine where I bashed a country, can't be done! My philosophy, thanks to the lyrics of a song written and performed by Rush is:

"Better the pride that resides, in a citizen of the world;
than the pride that divides, when a colorful rag is unfurled."

You've been doing far too many hallucinogens!

[dratsab]

"The moral of the story is to not bite off the hand that feeds you. That means to not take advaantage or exploit nature for your selfish wants and desires. That's causation, and that always has to take it's course no matter what, if you know what I mean."

How ironic coming from someone who takes advantage of the marvels of man-made technology.

"That's because you obviously have tunnel vision, You can't see the forest for the trees, or rather, you can't see the life, for the self."

It seems you missed the part of my post where I said it is in man's best interest to not destroy nature, but not for nature's sake, but for man's sake.

"Give me a nice Cathedral or a rennaissance bridge any day over those 20th century eye sores."

I prefer secular beauty and praising the marvels of technological advancement over that of nostalgia, but to each his own.

...

I must also say that I take great pride in being bashed for being American. I'm hardly tribal, and I find "patriotism" to be practiced by fools, but America is truly the land of innovation. The fact that Americans don't know much about other countries, and the fact that other countries know a lot about America, that isn't because Americans are fools, but because other countries know America is worth studying while their own country has work to do to earn our attention.