Insect Wars - Nat. Geo.
This is a nicely made documentary which hints that human violence (in large groups) is not anything new to the way nature works. This one is especially for those who proclaim that nature would be better off without humans, and who see humans as a disease, to be eliminated from the face of the earth.
I was able to watch about five minutes, the ants vs termites.
Then my phone said nope not gonna happen.
I have learned much since leaving the city. Insect battles are part of it. You hit upon what I have been thinking. Thank you.
Bummer: “The YouTube account has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.”
new link:
youtube.com/watch?v=DOW2WOeGh-A
Whilst I’ll be the first to argue everything we do is natural,
This is not the same as saying what has happened in the past, ought happen in the present. Or what other species do, ought be repeated by us.
We enslaved, tortured and murdered people based on skin color, beliefs, location, gender. We practiced human sacrifice for a good harvest, to make sure structures were stable, to placate angry men in the sky. We committed genocides, world wars, inquisitions.
All natural. All good?
That’s just some shit we do, let alone some of the crazy shit other species do - or the shit we do to other species.
Humans have great power, and we ought be responsible with that power.
We can destroy all life on this planet. I don’t think other species could kill all life on this planet at will.
The standards we hold ourselves to, ought be higher than that of our lessers. (Lesser in relation to power, accountability, awareness etc.)
=
Haven’t watched the doc, so this may or may not relate.
Thank you, Pandora.
The nature is full of violence, full of cruelness, full of abominations, and any and every living being is equipped with the will to live, the will to power. Even then, if we really want to take responsibility for nature, we could not do it, because we are also living beings. So the human promise of “responsibility fort the nature” is a lie. Having said that, we should not be surprised about that lie.
Here are some more interesting videos:
Schopenhauer was the earlier and the better “Darwin”. A half century before Darwin Schopenhauer explained philosophically, especially metphysically, how the nature works. Accordig to Schopenhauer the cause is the “will”, the “thing as such” is the will. A half century later Darwin said that the cause of evolution would be the natural selection. Darwin was a theologian, and thus his statement has a theological aspect because of the question: “what or who really selects?”. However, Schopenhauer was the discoverer or founder of evolution.
We don’t know the first cause; we can believe in a so-called “unmoved mover” (Aristoteles) or in a so-called “thing as such” (Kant) which became later the “will” (Schopenhauer); we can also believe in coincidence and its following “selection” (Darwin); but the latter is the most Imperfect one of those four explanations how development and/or evolution work.
We don’t need to say that Darwin was totally wrong, but we should be allowed to say that he was partly wrong, in any case more wrong than Schopenhauer. We also don’t need to consequently negate the nature because it is so cruel (and it is very cruel!). Because of that we can faith in Nietzsche and his affirmation of all development (thus also evolution and history), but also not too much!