Nature is incapable to "contain" us, as it is not even capable to feed us.
It very likely did in the tropical rainforests where humans evolved from. The requirements to sustain human living were optimal in this environment with abundant food. Since we have left and gone living in less suitable places which requires things like agriculture and dealing with property, our civilization in the last 6000 years or so have been pretty similar if you take away all the mechanics and technology.
Balance to me just simply means living together with nature, it's not some sort of tug-of-war between what is artificial and natural. In any case, these concepts are hard to fully pinpoint as they rely on using our specialized left brain to draw distinctions with language instead of just seeing them for what they really are.
Well, I use "nature" as this kind of wilderness, how "simpletons" would understand it. I would disagree with "It very likely did in the tropical rainforests where humans evolved from", as I believe that human only truly exists when capable of work (not labor) and act with other people. Now I am not saying they couldn't do that to some degree in the jungle, but I see that this agricultural developement for example has been requirement for creating cities, and cities have been requirement for "intellectual" developement of people, because this concentration of people have enabled easier interaction with greater populance, allowing ideas to better spread, education to be possible and further excelerate "work" to further expand artificial world.
Here I wan't to say that if you would be there in that jungle, you wouldn't even exists, as you would have no way to reveal your identity, or be in a contact like we are now. And if you were to be able, then that process of artificializing would start, that process that led us here.
I would disagree with "It very likely did in the tropical rainforests where humans evolved from", as I believe that human only truly exists when capable of work (not labor) and act with other people. Now I am not saying they couldn't do that to some degree in the jungle, but I see that this agricultural developement for example has been requirement for creating cities, and cities have been requirement for "intellectual" developement of people, because this concentration of people have enabled easier interaction with greater populance, allowing ideas to better spread, education to be possible and further excelerate "work" to further expand artificial world.
The thing with agricultural development and subsequent developments of culture is that it's assumed this has been a good thing or is progressive. The State and a general domination mode of thinking is much aligned with how certain societies had to depend on agriculture for it's subsistence. This doesn't mean society, community, or a city is inherently corrupt; it's just that much of the history of social organization in the long run has been a failure.
Also, why do you think "work" the fundamental or distinguishing thing about humanity? Lot of other animals cooperate, use tools, and create systems that could be seen as work.
Here I wan't to say that if you would be there in that jungle, you wouldn't even exists, as you would have no way to reveal your identity, or be in a contact like we are now. And if you were to be able, then that process of artificializing would start, that process that led us here.
Possibly, although I don't believe the processes that led us here are necessarily favorable.
Humans capability to work is far superior to any animal, so superior that human can live his whole life in a completely artificial envirovment.
That domination is always going to be there. In the process everything already changes anyway. For example evolution of foxes to city-foxes is serving foxes. For crature that is intelligently far superior to us, we are no more than what ant's are to us. This does not mean that this creature could not distinct us by our work and act, but that this creature is capable to multiple things compared to us in a similiar way we are capable of multiple things compared to ants.
It very likely did in the tropical rainforests where humans evolved from. The requirements to sustain human living were optimal in this environment with abundant food. Since we have left and gone living in less suitable places which requires things like agriculture and dealing with property, our civilization in the last 6000 years or so have been pretty similar if you take away all the mechanics and technology.
Balance to me just simply means living together with nature, it's not some sort of tug-of-war between what is artificial and natural. In any case, these concepts are hard to fully pinpoint as they rely on using our specialized left brain to draw distinctions with language instead of just seeing them for what they really are.
Well, I use "nature" as this kind of wilderness, how "simpletons" would understand it. I would disagree with "It very likely did in the tropical rainforests where humans evolved from", as I believe that human only truly exists when capable of work (not labor) and act with other people. Now I am not saying they couldn't do that to some degree in the jungle, but I see that this agricultural developement for example has been requirement for creating cities, and cities have been requirement for "intellectual" developement of people, because this concentration of people have enabled easier interaction with greater populance, allowing ideas to better spread, education to be possible and further excelerate "work" to further expand artificial world.
Here I wan't to say that if you would be there in that jungle, you wouldn't even exists, as you would have no way to reveal your identity, or be in a contact like we are now. And if you were to be able, then that process of artificializing would start, that process that led us here.
The thing with agricultural development and subsequent developments of culture is that it's assumed this has been a good thing or is progressive. The State and a general domination mode of thinking is much aligned with how certain societies had to depend on agriculture for it's subsistence. This doesn't mean society, community, or a city is inherently corrupt; it's just that much of the history of social organization in the long run has been a failure.
Also, why do you think "work" the fundamental or distinguishing thing about humanity? Lot of other animals cooperate, use tools, and create systems that could be seen as work.
Possibly, although I don't believe the processes that led us here are necessarily favorable.
Humans capability to work is far superior to any animal, so superior that human can live his whole life in a completely artificial envirovment.
That domination is always going to be there. In the process everything already changes anyway. For example evolution of foxes to city-foxes is serving foxes. For crature that is intelligently far superior to us, we are no more than what ant's are to us. This does not mean that this creature could not distinct us by our work and act, but that this creature is capable to multiple things compared to us in a similiar way we are capable of multiple things compared to ants.