Can we possibly argue against nature?

i was just wondering, if it is possible to agrue any point against nature?

“i am a samuri worrier, so i should fight you in honor” the actor tosses away his blade and goes punch for punch with the dude that just got up from the floor.

but in nature, doesn’t the predeator hunt for the weakest first? like a the cheeta would chase after the slowest pery. The lions would surround who ever is isolated (meaning weak).

these are evidence of nature, and the way our current world work. could it possibly be that our society has developped so much more “crap” that we have forgotton that we are also animals, and our most basic desires would differ no more than the wild world?

if so, how could one argue for animal rights, or any other such thing. or do we just think we are so powerful and almighty that we should do something that no other “aimal” has done, and that is make up reasons and excuese do support what we think should be right for the world?

some people, apparently not most of the people who post here, but some of us are able to imagine that if we were on the ground and a samurai ran over to us, we would be praying that he didnt just kill us, and wed pray that we could somehow get a chance to fairly attack him.

so the samurai gives him happiness and is able to say that ‘he won a fair fight’ instead of ‘he is a terminator of innefficient life’.

First of all — in the example you chose to give a visual explanation of your question there is in fact nothing that contradicts the natural way in which things happen. The samurai in your story is obviously the stronger party in this case, whereas the man lying on the ground is weaker. Thus it would be natural for the strong samurai to kill his weak opponent.
I believe there is no way that we can ever defeat nature and the reason for that is sort of “recursive” - we cannot fight nature successfully, because we, ultimately, are a part of it and hence fighting nature would mean fighting ourselves. In fact this is what we have been doing since the beginning of the Industrialisation, perhaps even earlier, when we stared exhausting natural resources, modifying and destroying nature at our will. However, I believe that nature itself has provided us with an if not intellectual then at least manual limitation which ultimately will prevent us from defeating nature and winning this fight -
to defeat nature is to defeat ourselves and a triumph over it would coincide with our doom.

there is however no nature outside of the semantic structure. for the samurai ideea of rioght and wrong is a semantic structure, and the naturalist view with the pray and stronger/weaker is also a semantic structure and so on.

for the nature, there is no nature. definitely nothing natural will call itself “natural”.

we defeated nature when we grabbed it by the little balls, put those balls in the ground and grew our own nature in our backyard tens of thousands of years ago.

so what? we arent living in the african bush like nature designed us to, so we already won. we are not a part of some natural balance anymore, we are far above it.

well nature made it so that we do require its chemicals. but only until we find a way to synthesize those chemicals. but like i said, we dont live in nature, we can manipulate it like we are god.

yeah just like we do, we decided that, even though meat is delicious and vegetables are icky that we will first cultivate the plants, then animals later.

humans shouldnt be hunting humans anymore than cheetahs should hunt cheetahs. when we “defy” nature by not being social darwinists, then we are merely spreading the happiness that all humans should have been equally given.

the thing is, when humans were natural, in the jungle, everybody was equal. “defeating” nature with agriculture is what led to the poor-rich split and a need for seemingly unnatural altruism. being altuistic may seem unnatural, but the end of that process, human equality, that is the only natural state of affairs. social darwinism is far from natural.

I think this is an excellent point. We may at time fool ourselves into mistakenly thinking that we are above nature, but we are not. If, or when we do defeat nature, then we will die also.

All men must eat. Nutrients have to come from somewhere. Its takes a whole ecosystem to make an extra value meal. If we disrupt the planet enough, that is it. There isn’t another one we can use.

Our collective relationship with our planet contains the seed of our own destruction.

Aer you saying that we are all biology in that statement? And if so you wont admit to an “extra-biological” element in man, that is not there in mere animals?

We did not defeat nature, achieve immortality. Prevent yourself from ageing/sleeping/eating/drinking/STOP being human and i will say you have defeated nature.

Can you freeze to death? The fundemental structure of ‘‘you’’ is governed by nature. You may not be living in the ‘‘bush’’ but you are not living without water either.

We are in Nature, watch somebody sleep and u will see for yourself that man is an animal, we just have a funny old time manipulating things for the time that we are awake. the Mind plays a very funny game.

Or maybe it dosen’t. Can you dismissed that?

watch a person sleep and watch him when he is not. This whole society is built on us, everything that you do durng the day is just something for you to do to pass the time with, to keep you busy in other words. There are no patterns. Night time Day time?? What crazy stuff.