Nature itself can be violent. But people can choose between good or evil. Some can become born that way or created. Others do it out peer pressure. Like group member killings weres others follow in the lead of other who gave into peer pressure.
So it is nature or created? I guess those are more philosophical questions.
Nature is neither good nor evil.
shareno
shareNature is evil, sorry to say. Everyone dies right?
Ha, proof.
Nature isn't good or evil, it just is.
It's like you could watch a nature show about zebras , you watch the baby zebra be born and grow, and then you see the lion kill the baby zebra and you will be like OMG nature is so cruel. Those fucking lions.
But if the nature show was focusing on the lion family, you see their babies born and grow, and you knew the baby lion cubs were hungry then you are happy when the lions catch some food.
It just depends on your perspective. A blessing for one is usually a loss for another. They are all just trying to live, so there is no 'evil' intentions.
I really believe that humans are the only animals capable of evil.
I watch a lot of nature shows so I understand completely what you're saying. However, I remember once seeing such a program which claimed that a wolverine is capable of killing just for the sheer sake of it. Also, I think it's noteworthy that Satan is referred to as " the beast. "
shareCalling evil people after animals is just human's transference of their own beasts. Look on You-Tube and you see videos of animals who have to eat, but also animals who are a hell of a lot nicer than human beings are to each other. Nature is blind, good and evil and human concepts, and I think it derives from us being able to see the right thing to do, and then seeing someone doing the wrong thing - that is evil, it is a human intention to steal something from another because they do not think they will get caught or have to pay a price. Evil is like playing god, and probably where mankind got the idea of god. Seeing the big picture of how the world works or how people behave and then manipulating it for your own gain, or just because you can.
shareThere are some animals that kill for 'fun'. They are usually more intelligent animals. Orcas have been seen killing sea lions and flipping them up in the air like toys, and then not even eating them. But it is thought that this is how they teach the young orcas how to hunt, by making it more like a game.
So what we see as 'fun' might actually have a biological function. Intelligent animals do tend to play more, they need more mental stimulation. But I still don't think of that as 'evil'.
Of course Satan is called the beast but it's humans that named him that! So it's kind of meaningless, it's a human invention so it only says something about us, not about animals who don't know wtf satan is and don't care.
I've seen the same behavior displayed with lions when teaching their cubs how to hunt. But there seems to be no purpose to the way a wolverine kills at times, except as I said, just for the sake of killing.
I never suggested animals knew or cared about Satan. Somehow you read that into my words. My comment about 'the beast ' was my playing devil's advocate, no pun intended.
We may not yet know enough about wolverines to know why they appear to kill only for the sake of killing. Maybe that is why, or maybe there's something more to it, as there is with other species. However, I'll point out that human animals frequently enough kill for the sake of killing, i.e. "sport," or "bloodlust."
Humans have long tried very hard to separate ourselves from "beasts" or "animals," yet that's exactly what we are, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Well, I did a little research and discovered that's referred to as ' surplus killing ' and is indulged in by quite a few species of animals. And guess what? In a list of examples, man was first.
So you're saying wolverines (and other animal species) are somehow aware of "surplus" species and culling them to control population? I guess that's possible; haven't looked into it myself.
Humans do sometimes do that, but we also kill for frivolous reasons, and greed -- trophies, tusks for ivory, etc. -- something no other animals do.
No, you completely misunderstood.
shareOkay, then can you explain what you meant?
shareThe expression 'surplus killing' applies to what we've been discussing; when an animal kills excessively, unnecessarily, for sport, playfulness, etc.
shareI see. Interesting, and I've not heard the expression before. I wonder if that's really the case, or if it's that we don't yet understand the meaning behind these killings. Either is possible, but generally "nature" is a waste not, want not type of thing.
P.S. I hate contributing to the thread made by a known troll, but in this rare instance, I thought the comments were interesting enough to warrant a comment or two.
Hi Ben.
I'm not Ben, a troll or any variation of him. You need to restrain yourself with that accusation. I've been very civil to you in this discussion.
share"P.S. I hate contributing to the thread made by a known troll, but in this rare instance"
I wasn't referring to you, Db; I was referring to Dane, the OP :)
Well, you responded to my post and then end it with " Hi Ben. " What am I supposed to think ?
shareThe P.S. wasn't a response to you, and you didn't make the thread, right? I just assumed you'd know that wasn't directed at you :)
In any event, now you know and all is well on both our ends, right? That's all that matters.
I would not say I would be happy if the lions catch some food. Those parents need to be taught to feed their cubs, plants. Yeah! Time to wise up lions and start becoming vegetarian instead of killing other animals. Play nice!
shareWell cats (including lions) are obligate carnivores. That means they need meat to live. Cats can actually go blind and get severe nerve damage on a vegan diet. It is animal cruelty to feed them that.
Dogs and people and bears can live on a variety of diets, they can eat meat and digest it, but they don't need it.
That is why dogs can live just fine on cat food, but cats cannot live on dog food and will probably get diabetes and nerve damage because there is too much carbs and not enough meat.
If you were just joking (which I think you are) that is fine, I am leaving this here anyway just to maybe reach some lurker and possibly save a cat from a terrible painful death.
We can just make all carnivores extinct species. Fuck em
shareAnd that is what has happened. Now the humans have to make up for regulating the overpopulation of certain species and because of this, they sometimes get on the roads, leading to us dying.
Roadkill?
That right there is why I think humans are the only species capable of evil.
Other species kill to eat, and even sometimes kill for fun. But no other species has deliberately caused extinction of multiple species. Only we have done that , and only we would even consider such a thing.
"It's like you could watch a nature show about zebras , you watch the baby zebra be born and grow, and then you see the lion kill the baby zebra and you will be like OMG nature is so cruel. Those fucking lions.
But if the nature show was focusing on the lion family, you see their babies born and grow, and you knew the baby lion cubs were hungry then you are happy when the lions catch some food."
Very true, and I often think this when I'm watching a nature show about predators. I still don't like watching kills, but am glad for the predators getting the food they need to survive.
Great answer Popcorn! Agree wholeheartedly!
shareNature isn't good or evil, it just is.
I really believe that humans are the only animals capable of evil.
YEP
The universe and nature don't care about anyone, imo.
The universe is cold and unfeeling, uncaring.
How does the OP define "evil"?
shareThis is a very good question.
There are those that would say that there is no such thing as evil, just as there is no such thing as cold or dark.
There is heat or there is the absence of heat. There is light or there is the absence of light. There is good or there is the absence of good.
"Dark" and "cold" are not things, but rather descriptions we give to the conditions resulting in the absence of the light and heat energies.
"Dark" is the description we give to the absence of light. You can't go into a lighted room and "turn on the dark." There is no device that generates "dark." If you want to darken a room you must block out the light.
Dark and Cold are default conditions resulting from the lack of light and heat. The light and heat are energies above the default condition.
In the same way, some say "evil" is not a thing. It is a description of the lack of good. Also in the same way, good is an energy above the default state.
According to this definition, nature could be considered "evil" in that it is the default, uncaring condition. Once one sees the good that can be done, things can seem evil without it.
*edited for grammar
This actually made sense. Good logic.
I think real evil does take energy though, it's not just default uncaring. It's like above and beyond simply not caring.
Kind of like there is love, there is indifference, and there is hate.
Indifference takes no energy, but true hate takes a great deal of energy. (more than love, even)
To see suffering and do nothing is simply uncaring. Probably everyone on earth has done this at some time or another.
But to actively cause suffering , on purpose, for no practical reason or mediating circumstance, would be evil. Most people haven't done this- it is more rare then simple uncaring.
I thought the same when I first read it. A well reasoned perspective.
shareThanks for the reply. My general philosophy agrees more with yours. I posted that definition of evil for the sake of discussion, because Cookie.C.A. asks a good question, "How does the OP define 'evil'"?
Until we know what the OP meant by "evil" it is difficult to answer whether or not nature is evil.
It seems certain to me that there are violent acts of aggression in nature that, from a human perspective, cannot be considered evil. They are merely necessary, such as a lion making a kill to feed herself and her cubs. In the same way, viruses and bacteria are not Nature perpetrating evil, but rather the natural course of an ecosystem maintaining balance in population.
I believe you are correct that actively causing harm for no good reason is a good definition of evil in this context.
I would conclude from this line of conversation that nature is not inherently evil, because the violent aggression that occurs in nature is out of necessity. Whereas humans can be evil, because we will do those things intentionally and many times without remorse.
Agreed,aavfreak😉
shareI was in the shower just now and thought of this. Ever wonder where viruses come from?
Well, these things are non living things that, once they get inside you, can cause some of the WORST diseases.
So is nature inherently evil?
Yes.
Why would nature make something that can screw you up without even needing to live?
Think about it.
She is basically pointing her middle finger at you.
Viruses are alive, and they easily mutate. Just as all living beings adapt and mutate to their advantage.
Nature is not a she, nor a he, and no one is pointing their middle finger towards you, unless you want to believe they are; in which case, they are. Stop thinking of yourself as such a victim of life, and I promise you things will improve.
Viruses are alive? -_-
No, they are actually not! Type in "google" are viruses alive?"
It is a non living organism that has genetic material that mutates, not the virus itself.
"But one thing that scientists have struggled to agree on is whether or not viruses are alive. After all, they can't survive or replicate without a host cell, and due to their rapidly changing genes, scientists have never been able to work out how or when they evolved."
and
"Now a study by researchers in the US has managed to complete the first viral tree of life, and it suggests that not only are viruses alive, they're also really, really old, and they share a long evolutionary history with cells. "Viruses now merit a place in the tree of life," lead researcher Gustavo Caetano-Anollés said in a press release. "Obviously, there is much more to viruses than we once thought.""
http://www.sciencealert.com/viruses-are-alive-and-they-re-older-than-modern-cells-new-study-suggests
Vaccines are made from either live or dead viruses:
"Live virus vaccines use the weakened (attenuated) form of the virus. The measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine are examples. Killed (inactivated) vaccines are made from a protein or other small pieces taken from a virus or bacteria. The flu vaccine is an example."
Of course since they're in something of a grey area, one could call them "active" or "inactive" viruses, so actually we're both right :)
All right. Touche'
shareNobody 'designed' viruses, other than the newer strains that might have been made in human labs.
Nature does not have a finger. Nature is not a he or a she. Nature does not have a body or a mind or a gender. Nature does not have any plan or intention or motive.
You're personifying nature as if it was a person or a deity. 'Nature" is not a living sentient being, it's just a set of natural laws.
Nature designed viruses that spontaneously appeared along with living things. Nature is also referred to as a she because that is how most things are defined now days. Trains, planes, automobiles, etc. are all defined as a she. It makes me wonder what all things are a he; however, that was why I said it was a she.
Nature did not *design* anything. There is no designer. There is no plan, no end goal, no blueprint.
Viruses evolved like everything else.
Yeah, okay *wink wink* and I am suppose to believe that, knowing fully well that there are no "good viruses" that actually benefit humans. Why is it that all viruses are bad?
shareYou keep defining 'good' as anything that benefits humans. That is a subjective and blinkered definition. You are just another speck of dust, no more important or less important than a virus. There are no good OR bad viruses. Nothing in nature is good or ban. it just IS. We are all viruses.
Anything that helps the virus reproduce and survive and spread is 'good' from the virus's point of view.
We are NOT all viruses. Viruses are non living and we are living. We are made of cells, viruses are not. The only thing we have in common with viruses are maybe a few gene pairs that COULD BE similar; however, we are NOT viruses.
share*whoosh*
that was the point flying over your head.
The point is to stop looking at the universe as if you are the center and pinnacle of it.
You're just another speck of dust , like every other person, and like viruses and like everything else. If you want to understand nature, the first step is understanding your place in it. if you just want to troll, then have at it. I'm bored now with deliberate obtuseness.
I have a degree in Biology. Allowing you to get away with saying all the stuff you are saying is very simplistic and glossing over what they actually are. Viruses are non-living organisms and are NOTHING like us. I differ also from a spec of dust. If I am to accept whatever rubbish you are spouting off, then I have wasted four years of my life in college to support someone on a Movie Chat board.
Now nature has some organization to it, at least to me. So I think where you and I differ in opinion is that you think nature happens by pure chance right? That's okay.
So yes, we are going to keep having to butt heads because I do not actually believe everything is chance at all.
It didn't take me long to disbelieve that you're a college graduate. Unless you're a product of the quality of education emerging from our colleges nowadays , a point made by another member here who created a thread addressing that.
Well I did not recently graduate, it has been quite some time actually. But definitely people, who are educated in the subject, do not just want everything to be due to chance. I guess common sense wise, if you are not religious at all; you would just say "due to chance". I would say I am not really religious; but then again, I have to say I inquire a lot about it too. I mean I would need complete proof that there is NOTHING out there. In terms of what I studied, I believe there is a pattern of how things go about. It could be that spontaneously everything came to be, but there is organization by which it happened. I would say evolution happened because of survival of the fittest and even as some may say it was just chance, I would say that there was some pattern that allowed some individuals to survive over others. It is not purely just black and white.
shareThat isn't what Popcorn was saying. No, viruses (as well as bacteria and many other life forms) are not like us, however you and I already established earlier in this conversation that there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community about whether viruses are living organisms or not. Most likely they are a very old and unique form of life.
I'm assuming you've seen what they look like, and they are very odd. They look more like *tiny* alien mechanical devices than they do the type of organisms we're used to seeing.
Anyway, what Popcorn was saying is your view is an entirely human-centric view, and nature is not human-centric. Nature includes ALL of nature, humans and viruses alike.
Viruses may at times perform a positive service to humans in reducing overpopulation (culling the herd), but it's obviously not positive for the humans (or other animal species) who die as a result of them. Regardless, nature is neutral.
I didn't see Popcorn saying nature happens by pure chance. Evolution is organized, and not something that happens by pure chance.
Popcorn comes across as very negative and defeatist, minimizing the human species in the grand scheme of things.
shareNot IMO, Db. I think Popcorn comes across as very sensible. Not negative or defeatist at all. Not minimizing the human species, merely putting us into perspective with the rest of life on this planet, with whom we share it.
For thousands of years humans have had this great conceit about how we're more important, greater than, etc, to the point where many of us dislike even acknowledging we *are* animals, along with the rest of the animal kingdom. These illogical attempts to distance ourselves from other species and to continually view ourselves as superior rather than different, has caused us -- and this planet, not to mention the other species -- a whole host of problems, including lack of understanding and shortsightedness.
I am glad it was not just me. His/her view was kind of black and white, like "Do not bother making sense of it because your nothing, we are nothing, there is no such thing as anything."
I am like O_O.
That isn't at all what Popcorn was saying. The problem is you don't understand what s/he is saying and are therefore completely misunderstanding and mischaracterizing it.
shareImagine being a child, growing up in a household where you're indoctrinated with that mindset, being told you're on the same level as a cockroach. No self-esteem, self-worth. The kind of background that breeds sociopaths, serial killers; who are perceived as evil...which brings us back to square one.
shareThat would actually be hard to live in. I was brought up knowing that I was never good enough and that I need to strive to be #1 at all costs. Of course, today, I would think I am doing subpar in terms of the average working American.
shareBut then again, we have to go back to the OP and I am thinking he was just asking our opinion. Some of us would give our opinions and some would very well think our opinions are fact. The OP asked "Is Nature inherently evil?" So, by our standards, is it? That is where our opinion comes in. In my view, I would think the answer would be human-centric. In other's view, it is more general and nature is....
shareArvin, I don't care about the OP, who is yet another sock of troll Ben/BenCaesar's.
By our standards, a tiger or lion who's hunting us is evil, but is that lion or tiger actually evil, or just trying to survive -- as we are -- and getting a meal? Likewise, from a deer's standards, a human hunter trying to kill it, even for food and not just for a trophy and bloodlust, is evil.
Science has attempted, for hundreds of years, to be objective and put things in perspective. Not to merely think in terms of human-centricity.
Well, I was answering the question from the OP's perspective.
share