That’s anthropomorphizing. You cannot be “cruel” to nature. Nature doesn’t recognize things like cruelty because concepts like “cruelty” don’t exist in nature itself. Nature also doesn’t need to be “saved”, when people say so they are really concerned about the state of nature as it relates to human well being, not about nature itself.
There’s such concept as “exploiting natural resources” and “pollution” ?
Not to nature. These concepts imply “right and wrong” and “good and bad” but there is no such thing in nature, only change and response/adjustment to that change (with evolutionary process). Nature is not a sentient being - it simply adjusts; it has always done so.
Plants need only light energy, CO2, and H2O to make sugar (photosynthesis). Such plants as grass.
And grass is from which milk comes from.
Plants such as corn. Corn flakes and milk are a good combination.
Pigs come from corn or other plants. Bacon is good. Wheat made the bread and grass made the cow. Hamburgers are good.So you sandwich some starlight in between to slices of starllght. So when you seat down to eat ,what is happening is basically sun light eating sun light. Of course some nutrients (earth) are in the mix. And all the components of the human organism will eventually all be back in the mix. And so will the rabbits’ and the butterflys’. they all be representation of starlight and earth.
Primitive man knew this but modern man has no relation to the universe (he thinks).
We are nature and we are cruel to it.
Seems you confuse what man does to nature and what nature does to itlsef.
A valid point… What is “nature”, anyway? -Can we, may we - separate “man” and “nature”? Nature is not just Earth, this planet, it is all around us, the living and the non-living, including us… And it doesn’t stand to reason for something to be at war with itself…
I know where I am on that scale - I am no obsessive savant though, as they seem neurotic by their very nature of being a savant… I think I have met some. 
I think man needs to go WITH nature and not oppose it if we are to have longevity 
or more civilisations will crumble and new ones arise in their place, and do we want that… for that is our fam? We need to be wiser not faster, for faster does not always win the race.
Please reign it in Blurred, and I am asking you nicely so be nice back, thanks - the modern take on Savants does probably differ to the original meaning, as most things lose their original meaning over time, no? that is the way of the world…
People should know when I speak of retarded savants, it’s the term “idiot savants” had hoped people would be more knowledgeable about such, here on such site as this.
What are you talking about? Was that an unofficial warning for nothing? Pretty sure I didn’t break any board rules.
This doesn’t make any sense. You said that “savant” is from the French word for “retarded genius”. But it’s not. I had hoped someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about, well, everything, would know this.
hh i need to tell you something.
i know some things but i dont know much about savants. you seem so intolerant of people who dont know something. i hope you will teach rather than condemn.
That’s a “homeopathic” condemption, I’v been lots worse.
But look at it from my point of view, if I should explain myself for every little thing I speak of, I couldn’t make a normal conversation, as I may apply different basic scientific concepts. Nor do I think you would like to explain every very simple thing aaaalll the time for people.
People should do as I used to do, google every word they didn’t understand.
You ought to go back and google savant yourself.
I have and I know I’m wrong in many aspects.
Cool. Respect.
You can not be “cruel” to a human being because concepts like cruelty don’t exist anywhere except the mind of an observer and even then it is an opinion word. It implies “good and bad” and “right and wrong” but there is no such thing in humanity only change and response. Good, bad, right, wrong are all opinions and don’t really exist unless we imagine they do. If one imagines they exist in nature, they are just as real as they are between humans.
And if you were paying attention you would realize this isn’t even my opinion and i was just clarifying a post that was attempting to be poetic or something.
Why is there life and why is it necessary. I do not know why this experience is necessary. We could probably go out and destroy it all.
But I feel we (most of us) have decided that is is good. It is good that life exists. And so we give it value. This value is not the same value with reverence as primitive man had. Primitive man may have had a god. A god he created. And in turn this god he created, creates him. This god he cretae gives him orders to live by. In a round about convoluted way this man creates his value. He took care of nature because his god lived in it.
And those value have changed. Modern mans god live up in the sky some where. Modern man conveniently move him out of tha way. Rape plunder and pilage of nature became fair. Modern man has created for hisself another value.
And if this experience is good and worth saving modern man sure does not act like it.
Daniel Tammet is definitely interesting. I recommend "Born on a Blue Day’, his autobiography. Great read.
Interesting feats include being able to able to recall pi to the… thousand-something decimals, I think (note: looked it up, 22 and a half thousand). He was bale to do this because he “thinks” of numbers as shapes. And after spending time memorizing pi, as he would recall the numbers, he’d see a kind of shifting landscape from which he’d know the numbers (maybe I’m not describing it well…). He also went to Iceland to do an interview, in Icelandic, challenging himself to learn Icelandic, considered one of the world’s hardest languages to learn, in only one week. I guess what one considers “fluent” is relative, but in the interview he didn’t seem to have any difficulty understanding them and making himself understood.