posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by badw0lf
I disagree. Nearly all life develops an equilibrium with nature and it's local environment.
Yes, which is why approx. 99.99% of all species which have existed on this Earth are now extinct.
Life doesn't seek equilibrium. It only looks that way to you because you're seeing the current result of competition. All life seeks to consume as
many resources as possible for their own survival and procreation. Wolves don't gauge elk populations and decide to feast on rabbits if they they are
too low. Wolves would hunt the Elk to extinction if it didn't mean less resources, by and extent, starvation.
Humanity is not outside of this so called "balance". Consider peak oil. Say we run out, and the last few oil fields become fierce battle ground.
Wars are fought, cities destroyed. Infrastructure collapses. We cannot ship food, medicine, or supplies, causing millions of deaths from the resulting
war, famine, and pestilence. Pretty bad scenario huh? A consequence of our "imbalance" with nature? No. That is the balance. Like all life, we will
continue to expand until competition over resources forces population limits. In the case of Peak Oil, all those deaths would lower the population of
the Earth to a level that is more sustainable for the given resources.
So the very consequences so many decry as humanities "imbalance" with nature, is really the very essence of that balance in effect.
I think some of you people are too sheltered by society, and perhaps might not fully grasp that when you talk about "balance" - you're really
talking about disease, starvation, predation, submission to the elements, death, and destruction. All means of checking a population. Some of you have
very, very, very
warped perspectives of nature and how it operates.
[edit on 21-5-2009 by Lasheic]