The State of the World

To answer your first:
When I speak of 'natural' I am referring to a state of being that would exist without human interaction. Now - of course - this cannot occur due to us being a part of nature but it helps construct an image of what I mean. Nature ( for me ) is the natural world and its ecosystems. Take any wildlife documentary that follows the path of a certain species. The film crew and staffing of the documentary cannot interact with the way events occur and unfold, despite any emotional ties they have to the animal. This is to simulate what would happen naturally in the wild. If you can see my angle on this?
Humans do fit into this, just not in the way we have developed to interact with this natural order ( so to speak ). We do not have a right to enslave or cultivate a whole other species merely for our own benefit. Why? Simply because naturally this development goes against the order of nature. I keep on referring back to my examples but it is the best way for me to express what I mean in terms that makes me understandable ( because I can ramble :lol: ).
Take the Indian Tribes as an example. They lived alongside animals and hunted them for food when needed. That is the main difference. They hunted the animals for food, just as animals naturally hunt one another for food. They did not capture and cultivate the buffalo on mass, to cater them and finally slaughter them - robbing them of their natural freedom in the wild.
In terms of traditions, not one tradition is of more value than another when I say these next lines but it will depend on a frame of reference. To the Indians, the white man's way of cultivating was near sacrilege but to the white man, the Indian's way of cultivating was primal. It is not for me, you or anyone to decide what one is of more value, rather, to decide what one alines with your own personal beliefs. For me, living with the animals rather than cultivating them in the way modern society does is 'natural'. For you, it may not be. ( although, one could argue I am hypocritical around this due to living in a modern society but, this is something I have no choice over at this point in time. )

To answer your second:
This refers back to my point of the frame of reference and personal preference. I can say that one method is 'more natural' than another, just as you can argue against me in favor for another method. It is down to opinion and how an individual perceives the world. As for which way is better, that is simply an argument of opinion that nobody can win because nobody is right nor wrong. Rather, in my view, the Indian method of living ( so to speak ) is better - whereas you may view our modern methods as being better. In all depends on the perception of the individual.
Nobody can truly tell you what is right or wrong, better or worse, rather, one can suggest their thoughts on better or worse, right or wrong. Each individual has to make up their own mind. My reasons for my opinion of this could completely contradict your own, and therefore, are wrong and inferior in your eyes but right and superior in my eyes.

Hope this kinda makes sense of what I mean? :S

To speak of 'nature' is to include ALL of it. It is incredibly egotistical of any human being or all of us combined to think that we are somehow above nature or separated from it. The state of the world in human terms is really of little significance to 'nature'. It is significant to us as inhabitants of the planet because we really want to remain alive (again, the ego), but 'nature' could really care less. Ask a dinosaur. Tsunamis do not discriminate. Most diseases do not discriminate. Meteors do not discriminate either. 'Nature' will return the balance, no matter how many cows we choose to cultivate for food.

If we are to survive, it is in some part due to an incredibly lucky set of circumstances. If we squander that chance by nuking ourselves into oblivion, we will not be missed for long. The planet will shrug us off as you would shrug off a case of head lice. And this planet of ours is a mere speck of sand in a galaxy that is also a mere speck in the grander universe.

I don't mean to be all doom and gloom either, but lamenting over the state of the world will not get us anywhere. Those problems appear too daunting to one Jedi alone. Instead, I would suggest that we seek to better understand how we can improve ourselves as individuals and encourage those immediately around us to do the same. Find your own peace. If we cultivate better Jedi the way we cultivate cows, the problems will fix themselves. If we choose not too, we will all end up one with the Force all the same. That is the true 'nature' of things.

Wow! This is a really interesting conversation. I'd like to add something to it if I may.

I agree with you S. Gaelach, there is a way to live more harmoniously within nature. You gave the example of the Native Americans which I think is spot on. But I think we have to ask ourselves: what is nature currently? When we talk about other groups that live more harmoniously with nature, we are also talking about a pre-industrial revolution way of life (most recently) or perhaps hunting and gathering (if we want to stretch it back that far). If we want to live in harmony with nature (the one that you suggest) we would have to give up modern conveniences such as the internet, central heat, running water etc. As Gistron says, we don't want to de-evolve as it were. So we have to contend with our current nature. Currently we have 7 billion people on this planet that we could support. We have starving people in our own countries, in our own cities, in our own neighborhoods perhaps. As you pointed out S.Gaelach there are people content to throw food away while others starve.

Our current "nature" is concrete buildings, paved roads, and sorry to say, cultivated food. Given the current set of circumstances, what can we do?

The grander problem of the collective misuse of resources, the collective unbalance with nature that we see may certainly not be solved by one or even a group of Jedi, but the starving person in your neighborhood, maybe they need some help. The poor and downtrodden of the city that you live in may need some support.

Yes, we have a long way to go to right the world, but there are a lot of things that we CAN do, ourselves to make our own mark and improve its state.

What do you think?

i think batteries drain when they sit on concrete

i think that people care more than somegive them credit for
im a person
i care

i think it would be a great balancing exersize to spend some time looking up people who change the world
you might just be suprised at how many amazing and dedicated people there are in the world

ill give you a free bee
spaceXtesla

but theres lots and lots of others
and ill do you one better than that
youre name is on the list too

of course when i suggest this as a balancing exersize im talking about people who are recognized for making a difference on a global scale

but i would like to challenge you to make up your mind right now that you yourself are going to make a great difference in your lifetime
thats what jedi means yeah?
yeah

dont worry about it if you dont know how

just make up your mind that there is a SOLUTION MOVEMENT for every problem that u recognize

and that the reason youhavent found this movement yet is because you havent adequately prepared yourself to be useful to it
yet
so think about what skills youre going to need to save the world and find a way to learn them

and trust that if you do your best
the force will do the rest

Warning: Some people may take some offense to my following opinion; none is meant

I have to agree with Senan (although I may be taking his point out of his context here)

Our aim to 'save the planet' is ultimately a selfish one (not selfish to one person, but to the species as a whole), as the earth is perfectly capable of surviving without us. Even if we were to kill off all life on earth, I don't suppose the planet would much care. Either life would begin again, or not, but it really wouldn't matter in the scheme of things.

In my honest opinion (I don't expect people to agree, just to consider it), the desire to save the planet and all the little furry animals is a totally selfish ideology, and we need to recognize it as such. We're not trying to save the trees or the bunny rabbits, we only want to save ourselves.

Fenton wrote: Warning: Some people may take some offense to my following opinion; none is meant

I have to agree with Senan (although I may be taking his point out of his context here)

Our aim to 'save the planet' is ultimately a selfish one (not selfish to one person, but to the species as a whole), as the earth is perfectly capable of surviving without us. Even if we were to kill off all life on earth, I don't suppose the planet would much care. Either life would begin again, or not, but it really wouldn't matter in the scheme of things.

In my honest opinion (I don't expect people to agree, just to consider it), the desire to save the planet and all the little furry animals is a totally selfish ideology, and we need to recognize it as such. We're not trying to save the trees or the bunny rabbits, we only want to save ourselves.

i agree with this
for clarity's sake, any time i ever talk about saving the world what i mean is saving or bettering the human world. i also mean to do this in a way that respects the natural.systems of the earth.
i also mean to do something that has clearly "beneficial" effects with as little harmful consequences as possible

also i think that most of what people get offended about is stupid.
there is no good reason to ever feel offended or to take anything personal ever
but thats a different topic

you change the world simply by being in it, whether you know it or like it or choose it or not, there really is no choice about it (short of lifelong isolation)
therefor it is your resposibility to be deliberate and thoughtfully choose how you will change it, and to what extent

OB1Shinobi wrote: but i would like to challenge you to make up your mind right now that you yourself are going to make a great difference in your lifetime

I have always lived by the saying that "you should be the change you want to see in the world".
Frankly, I am amazed and intrigued by the different points put forward so far.

Fenton wrote: In my honest opinion (I don't expect people to agree, just to consider it), the desire to save the planet and all the little furry animals is a totally selfish ideology, and we need to recognize it as such. We're not trying to save the trees or the bunny rabbits, we only want to save ourselves.

I understand what you are saying. We are part of the nature of the world and we have been for a good amount of time ( rather tiny if put into perspective, but still a decent amount of time ). The world does not need saving, my post is not about saving the world, or the trees, or the bunny rabbits. Rather my argument is how we interact with the world of nature at the current moment could be improved. I believe their is a way to co-exist in this world with everything else without cultivating an entire species for food.

RosalynJ wrote: If we want to live in harmony with nature (the one that you suggest) we would have to give up modern conveniences such as the internet, central heat, running water etc.

RosalynJ wrote: Our current "nature" is concrete buildings, paved roads, and sorry to say, cultivated food. Given the current set of circumstances, what can we do?

The grander problem of the collective misuse of resources, the collective unbalance with nature that we see may certainly not be solved by one or even a group of Jedi, but the starving person in your neighborhood, maybe they need some help. The poor and downtrodden of the city that you live in may need some support.

Yes, we have a long way to go to right the world, but there are a lot of things that we CAN do, ourselves to make our own mark and improve its state.

What do you think?

As I have mentioned above, I have lived by trying to be the change I want to see in the world. We wouldn't absolutely need to give up our modern appliances to live in such a way. With newer technology now, electricity can be generated by wind power, power of the waves an even by light.
My ideal scenario? A scenario in which people use such technologies to rid societies dependency on mass production of electricity and of food. If everyone had a system in place ( which, I know, is sounding a bit far fetched at the moment ) that could generate them their own electricity - modern appliances would not need to be dropped. This argument of devolving in order to harmonize with nature is not what needs to happen.
The next stage of social evolution, I think, lies in everybody having a self sustainable life style that is not centered on consumerism. Sure, some consumerism and trading would exist but not to the scale that it is today. This would mean growing our own food, fishing for our own food and perhaps keeping a few chickens etc. for food.

I think that back in history, we were too dependent on "hunter/gather" style living. Nowadays, we have advanced to the other extreme of being too dependent on "consumerism". I think we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.
But that is just me.

i want to add this

i think the internet itself represents a technological model of a natural system

specifically i would highlight wikipedia
what is wikipedia except a techno version of an intelligent conversation? the most informed or knowledgeable on any given topic are in open dialogue while the un or newly initiated merely try to learn from those who already have the information

its a compmetely technological evolution of natural human interaction

fenton:
i also would like to add specifically in regards to the point you bring up,

speaking for myself, i am a conservationalst. i do not consider it my place to protect the fish from the inherent dangers of the river
or to protect the river from the hunger of the ocean
when you speak of the selfishness of conservation i have to say that the greater selfsihness is to continue on a path which so inarguably destroys and pullutes the entire natural system

this path is firmly based in the INCORRECT assumption that we are somehow removed or seperate from that system

our bodies are made of water and air and earth and electricity and star dust

this is mystical truth
and it is scientific fact

we are a natural expression of a natural universe
it is not that we affect the world around us in a way that is un natural
it is that we do it in a way which is immature and selfish

which is what i mean about when i talk about damaging the environment and trying to seperate ourselves from the natural system

the challenge is to stay integrated with the world and not allow technological progress hypnotize us into thinking we are superior to the water and the earth and the air which we literally can not live without

Well when you think about our past it's utterly amazing we've even made it this far. Two world wars plus all the wars and things that have happened since before we had a good way to document history (which I know, is written by the victors). The salem witch trials, the crusades, the dark ages, slavery, every war ever, etc, need I go on.

It's just the same shit on a different day tbh. There's always been corruption, and I'd be willing to bet there always will be, like was said it's just a part of the human condition. But where some think things are getting worse I believe things are getting better. It's difficult but trying to look at the world beyond your lifetime can be eye-opening and put things in perspective. Ever thing how cool it would be to live in the old west? Don't movies make it seem awesome? No! The west was a god-awful place to be, or how about even living in a world without the internet, phones, cars, running water?! We have it the best compared to anyone living ever.

But beyond that, the evil that still exists, we've forced it into the darkenss, into hiding. If a king didn't like what you had to say, he could just straight up kill you and get away with it. A group of people don't like a woman? Now you have to accuse them of being a witch. But what now? How easy is it to get away with killing someone? I guess you could try to plant evidence but still, it'd be extremely difficult. Corruption? Forced to hide beyond politicians nobody trusts, unable to push their agenda's with all the red tape that's been put up.

TL:DR Things are amazing now, there will always be problems, no matter what. We aren't living in utopia because we've spent the last 2,000 years fighting the truly darkest of evils (murder, theft, slavery) while the only prevalent evil are politicians and groups trying to push an agenda through a mile of red tape.

I like when you're going yeah this world is in some turmoil,but these things are happening for a reason.government fighting for land and natural resources,labels this group bad and that group good. All you really can do is put your two cents out there.