2007-02-19 00:18:45 · 7 answers · asked by arbiter_47 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Nature may have predestined the extinction of mankind. Nevertheless, I like your question because it presumes man is outside nature. Quite a radical reversal you are proposing. What is there in nature that is worth such a sacrifice?
2007-02-19 02:17:39 · answer #1 · answered by Baron VonHiggins 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
preserving it for whom? plus humans are also nature.... and today's nature is not the same as it was in the past. mankind is not the first cataclysmic[sp?] "un-natural" change to occur. We can't live without "nature" so we'll be self-limiting, and something will continue on NATURALLY... probably artificial intelligence lol. just watch in 40 million years we'll be the dinosaurs something else ponders. ***Eliminate technology- force humans to survive naturally- that's the best means to the end you seek.
2007-02-19 09:33:58 · answer #2 · answered by SCOTT 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why can't there be a peaceful co-existance? If man extincts nature, he extincts himself, so that wouldn't work.
2007-02-19 09:15:56 · answer #3 · answered by Mike 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In did for many years till I realized that man an nature are not separate.
Without one you don't have the other.
Love and blessings Don
2007-02-19 13:12:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think about it too sometimes. But then I think of all the nice people out there, and I just... I don't want it to happen. But it would be for the best, yes.
2007-02-19 09:49:53 · answer #5 · answered by Barbara V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then there would be no one to enjoy it. Though we should be more aware of its existance.
2007-02-19 15:51:44 · answer #6 · answered by Travis James 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
soory too wordy for me can't understand........ ha ha lol and to answer your question...........yes
2007-02-19 08:27:38 · answer #7 · answered by lea loves to laugh 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋