Would going back to nature be a good idea?

Question

Over time humans have distroyed the planet, slaughtered the animals, burned the forests, and poisoned their own homes to the point where the Earth is dieing all around us. I look in disgust at humanity and what it has done to the world. Every now and then I will get an idea that seems to start taking care of the problem. Why not return to being animals ourselves? Start a small group that gradually moves back into the places that were once home. We would have no reason to kill this world or each other after doing away with money and possessions. Evil is the result of human greed and a hunger for power. Mabey evolution has actually gone too far. Perhaps we should start taking it backwards enough that we loose the deadly impact we have on the earth.

Answer 1

Albert Einstein once said, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

By bringing this up, I mean to show how, eventually, we will be brought back to a more natural way of living by one means or another. I hope that people can make the choice for themselves to live in a higher state of harmony with the earth and each other before we are forced to a natural and helpless state via war or some other another disaster.

If we choose to live more harmoniously, we can still retain the things of beauty and value that we have achieved thus far. If however, we are forced to live in such a natural way by means of destruction, we will loose all or most of the jewels of the human experience that man has saved for hundreds and thousands of years. The choice is ultimately ours.

Answer 2

Its not so much that back to nature is a bad idea as much as it
just isn't a good idea. Check out the movie "The Village", its a good
model for what you are saying.

But it will only work for small groups of people, lets say no more
than 200.

The problem arises after three or for generations. And a child is
born who grows up and believes he should be leader. When
it becomes apparent that he will not be made leader,he will
become violent. He will find people who will back him up and
take over by force. You're back in the same sinking boat you
thought you saved yourself from just 80 years before.

The other problem is, if it could actually make it work, You
couldn't save everyone. Some would not want to go and there
just isn't room for the rest.

Now to address the other problem, the environment. You
shouldn't put all the blame on us beleaguered humans, mother
nature has a hand in it too. Naturally caused forest fires send
large plumes of carbon dioxide into th atmosphere (so do
forest fires started by accident or on purpose). These fires
destroy the carbon dioxide sinks Volcanoes spue thousands
of cubic tons of ash and toxic gases high up into the
atmosphere

The short term effects of volcanic eruptions is slight changes
in weather patterns, which can last up to six months.

As to animal slaughter. In this country, the only animal that has
ever been hunted to near extinction is the Buffalo. And that was
a sociological decision.

There is far more wildlife out there then has ever been taken
by hunters.

I have no answer for the problem, but I hope this helps you
understand the whole of the problem. I am sure, by the way,
that the full answer to the problem is just as simplistic.

Answer 3

To say we would have no reason to kill eachother is totally an ignoramous thing to assume. Just because we wouldn't have money for acquiring possessions does not mean we would have no possessions. People would start killing over food and shelter. Who has the better home, who has food, and who doesn't? 'Going back to nature' will not eradicate greed and power. Do you know anything about human nature and social development at all?
And as far as I know there is no one making you or anyone else not be self sufficient. I know of many people who live "off the grid" so to speak. They grow their own food, make thier clothes, educate thier children, build energy efficient homes that are run on thier own power, and asside from paying taxes (which they do to cover costs of public services that may be needed Ex:a Fire Department if thier house burns down, ), are living the kind of life you seem to think is unattainable. So stop your whining. My question to you is, what are you doing to make an impact on environmental waste and consumption? Seems to me that you are the type to b**** about the problem, and indicate that it's everyone else who's causeing it; but you can't see the forest for the trees. You are obviously not living the life your preaching if your on the Internet. Because true people who are 'back to nature' don't bother with s*** like this. They don't have the time because they are too busy collecting their eggs, fixing thier roof, slaughtering thier pigs, tending the garden, and prepairing all their meals from scratch.
So if your looking at humanity in disgust, look no further than yourself.
If you can not look at humanity in awe and amazment at all the positive things that people are doing, I feel very sorry for you.

Answer 4

Unfortunately going back to nature is not an option for the human race unless you want a mass die off. The humans have over populated the world and natural selection or survival of the fittest would soon evolve. Without fertilizer and technology humans would soon exhaust all of the natural resources that are readily available.

Its a nice thought but really not plausible at this time

Answer 5

None of that is true. What is true is that, before civilization, humans lived short lives of intense suffering, while destroying habitat after habitat before moving on.

One only has to compare enlightened westernized societies to their primitive third world counterparts. Our life is good. Their life is heinous. Our life respects the environment and almost all people live in non-polluted areas where life thrives. They live in squalor and intense pollution.

Want to see what the result of what you propose is? Take a look at a picture of the isle of hispaniola from space. One side is the dominican republic with modern technology and most of the amenities of civilization. The other side is haiti where people don't have those things and live a much more primitive existence. The dominican side is green. The haitian side is brown. Why? All the green is dead.

That is what would happen if man were to do as you suggest. Evil is the result of marxism. And liberals and crazy nonsense like this are their tools.

Answer 6

I tend to agree with you. I don't know what that world would look like, given that we've gone so far with this way of life, but when I come back to the feeling that we should return to nature, I think of the Native Americans, who live in such a way, for tens of thousands of years, that they could have lived that way for tens of thousands of years more. And they were no less happy than we are today, perhaps even happier.

It seems that commerce and consumerism has driven all our activity. Consequences be damned.

Products won't save us or make us happy. Long life is not necessarily a life of quality. Ask Lao Tse, Marcus Aurelius, Socrates, Aristotle, Emerson, Thoreau....

Answer 7

The poor-man’s teaching was the first lesson which was taught to me in life. I came upon his house, which was in the near-by woods. His house was small, yet humble; made from earth and trees. When I first saw him, I thought he was a poor man, but then he taught me a new way to look at life. He taught me how to live off the land. The experience was both enriching and rewarding. He then told me this was the way he chose to live. I asked him why, and he said, “Well kid, people now-a-days forget about nature. They let modern conveniences give them their artificial pleasure. Just like a disease, their pleasure becomes an every day necessity to live. Yet the rich dare to call me poor; but it is they who are poor. For they let the modern times control their lives and infect their minds with the idea; people who chose to think and live the way I do are poor and powerless. None of them can live the way I do. Therefore, I am richer than any man and more powerful than any king. For I have done what many can not. That my boy is to simply live the way I wish.” It would not be until I got older that I would finally understand what that enriched man had said.

Answer 8

This question is flawed because it looks at humans as outside the world and nature. We are still animals, and we are doing what animals do: we are dominating other animals so that we can survive. No other animal has a concept of balance, they merely lack the ability to dominate their surroundings as completely as we have. We are not destroying the world, we are changing it. Pollution can be harmful to us and to the world as it is, but it is meaningless to call it bad. The meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs was not evil, it was an agent of change. It is true that what we are doing may destroy our own species in the end, and many other species as well, but this is not evil, it merely is. Long afterwards our actions will be as neutral as a meteor or a tidal wave. This question arises not from sympathy or from a sense of true justice and good, it arises from the instinct within you, as an animal, to survive and help your own progeny survive.

Answer 9

BALANCE, i think we all should living in balance life, balance in nature and modern life.

I think use natural product for our daily personal care like soap, shampoo, or may be even organic food is not a bad idea. In other way, using hi-technology to make our life easier is not bad either.

People everyday becoming smarter and smarter, so we should get advantage from both natural and modern and leave the bad side behind.

Answer 10

Yes, it would be a good idea to do away with consumerism, however, going back to nature would forgo the progress society has made as an industrial world.