Today class was canceled, which is usually an irritation because you take the time to get up, go to class, drive there, or whatever, only to find out your efforts were futile. As an aside, why is it that teachers feel that a student should warn of an upcoming absence, and a teacher does not? Is it the idea that because they already paid their dues, they are held to a lower standard? Shouldn't those setting a standard require of themselves no less than what they set? I don't know the answer, but our society seems to feel this is not how things should work.
Anyway, where am I going with this? This is important because I had a talk with a fellow classmate whom with I had never before spoken. We started fairly light, talking about previous class, when the issue of man and nature came up. There were three of us, an older gentleman, a women who seemed mid-twenties to early thirties, and me, a twenty year old male. She posed the question "Don't you think that the problems mankind is seeing can all be attributed to living apart from nature?" Interesting, it is not an entirely new question, nor entirely original, but everyones perception of this topic is nothing but unique.
The question that came to me after words was, what does living with nature mean, not in general, but specifically to her. However the conversation quickly become serious, and was discussed the best that untrained people can, but that seems to be the only way to have a conversation like this... How can you train for this topic? (So many questions today.) Anyway, she started stating that man was no better than (and in fact probably worse than) animals. She went on to state that homosexuality was a normal occurrence within natural patterns. I don't know if this is true or not as I have no studies to back it up.
The older man disagreed, beginning with the idea that man is no better than an animal. He said that nature can be ugly. He posed the question, "would you rather be the lion, or the zebra?" Again interesting.
At this point I was silent, deciding what I would say, and the following is an expansion of what I said, into what I also thought and felt.
Would man be better off if he lived within nature? As with the way I view most things in life, yes and no. There are definitely benefits to living as one with nature. We would be surrounded by constant beauty, we would have a healthy environment as far as the world habitat goes (probably), and we would be closer to more types of life. I also feel that our spirituality, as I have described in a previous post, would increase.
However, there are many things that have made life much better for people. Because of society we have made advances in both eastern and western medicine that allow us to live longer. We get to see more of the world now because in nature, we would die much younger. One predictor to what human life expectancy was supposed to be was the length that our teeth lasted. The theory states that because our teeth only last a certain time, and we need them to eat foods, that our life span should match our teeth. However, we have been able to circumvent this natural occurrence with modern dentistry. Another asset, we can travel more. We are able to explore the world, enrich our lives with more beauty than what immediately surrounds us, and we can meet people who think differently, and learn what diversity truly means. Technology like the internet has allowed me the ability to post my thoughts, dreams, machinations, and hopes for all to see, and maybe take away something.
For all the problems and stress that modern living has given us, it has also brought forth gifts. Like most things, there is no good without bad. In fact, the old ideology that good can not exist without bad seems to hold true. How can we know good if we don't also know bad?
To answer the question about the lion and the zebra, I respond with the thankfulness that I don't have to choose. If you choose one, you are perpetually a hunter, and you will do nothing but kill to sustain yourself, but you play a vital role. If you don't kill the zebra, then they would have their population explode, and would eat so much food that they all die out. If you choose the zebra you are perpetually hunted, you are food, and you may give your life to keep the rest of the herd alive.
Actually, upon writing this, I realize that we are both the lion, and the zebra. I don't have to choose because they are both me. I will someday die, as will all who are alive. There is always the possibility that I will die to keep others alive, much like the Zebra who is the kill of the Lion. However, as I must eat meat to survive, as it holds vital nutrients, I am also part Lion. I must, although indirectly via butchers, and slaughterhouse workers, kill to survive.
Nature is beauty and beast. It is beautiful in its balance, and delicate in structure, but gruesome in methodology. Again, there is no good, without the bad. For life to go one, others must die. Even if it is just a single blade of grass, it must give its life for another creature to live. The best you can do, is make life for those around you as bearable as possible.
The meaning? That is up for you to decide. But for me, the response that Dr. Vonnegut gave his father Kurt Vonnegut Jr. when asked sums it up perfectly: "Father, we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is."
And in the words of Mr. Vonnegut himself.
"So it goes."
