Is the cruelty of nature necessary?

[dio]

I posted something of this in another thread in a stream of thought, but it's something that has been floating around in me for a while that I am coming to terms with.

Nature is cruel. It is more cruel than loving. All physically manifest form is put at greater chance of cruelty than of love.

So many people born into uncircumstantial positions in life. So many animals or beings being consumed trampled and stomped by others. So many good people who fall to depression or some mental illness disallowing them to ever find true love and procreate, or settling for something less than their full potential.

It seems the game of nature is to break us down. The goddess, mother nature, is a bitch. She does not want to be permitting and uplifting. She only wants the best. You can chalk up evil to things like the greed of humans, but the desires of humans are extensions of the earth just the same, the desire of man to build an army and genocide a race is as naturally occurring phenomena as the growing of a tree. As one species of plant being overcrowded and outgrown by another species of plant, starving it of light. Nature is pitiless.

The motherly supportive aspect of natural process is simply to strengthen an entity enough to hurl it into chaos to test if it's worthy of further life. It is divinely motherly and evil simultaneously.

I have always liked to think the cruelty is unnecessary, we have evolved beyond that, that we need to evolve beyond it. But do we? Are we? Certainly the people who navigated the maze of cruelty seem more passive in desire for change, they are 'chosen' ones of the natures cruel process to weed out the inadequate. Is the desire for change simply a coping mechanism of those coming to terms with inadequacy and the fact mother nature is essentially filtering them out of existence, to recycle their energy to something more capable? Or is the necessity for cruelty really diminishing? Are we really getting to the point as a race where we could transcend it?

 

[benzyme]

Nature is about balance, there is a tendency to equilibrium, even with chaos.
Cruelty is irrelevant in that aspect, it seems to be only something humans get preoccupied with.

Will humans ever transcend it? :lol:

probably not.

 

[red_lego_spaceman]

This topic caught my eye, and I feel I must comment.

I have been reflecting on the cruelty of nature as I watch my 10-month old son deal with teething. Nature really is harsh to newcomers, IMO. Newborn comes into the world, and first thing, their little mouth hurts all the time and they don't know why.

But then.. the pain causes them to put everything in their mouth, and the repetition of this motion is how we learn to eat. Eventually the pain of teething will be replaced by the pain of hunger, and this instinctive motion will have formed in response to pain.

Nature communicates to us with urgency. This is not the same as cruelty. Cruelty is causing pain for sadistic reasons. To see nature as cruel is to project negative human emotions onto her.

Still, I agree that nature is a bitch

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Nature is cruel. It is more cruel than loving. All physically manifest form is put at greater chance of cruelty than of love...

I have always liked to think the cruelty is unnecessary, we have evolved beyond that, that we need to evolve beyond it. But do we? Are we?...

Are we really getting to the point as a race where we could transcend it?

My thoughts on this are:
Nature is not cruel, cruel is a context driven perceptive attribution. For example, when one plant out grows another and shades it and then it dies from lack of light, this is not cruel unless you attribute emotion to it. When a cat plays with an injured mouse, this is not cruel unless you attribute emotion to it. When a pack of wolves kill a wolf that wanders into their territory, again this is not cruel unless you attach emotion to it by observing it as cruel.

Evolution does not involve progress, merely adaptation and relevant change. This can be difficult to understand, but nature is not goal oriented. There is no final purpose, destination or cause inherent to life. If we were moving towards and ideal and reached it, what then? Is the concept that we as a species move towards some ideal of utopia and then live forever after in harmony? What then? What is the point of harmony? If one species were harmonious, what of all the others that compete for food, shelter, territory, mating and other aspects? If we as a species "move past" our nature as mammals, as animals, then will other life not exist? What about mosquitoes? Will they eventually evolve into something that will not give us malaria?

Cruelty is a part of existence as we observe it, but is it bad in and of itself? Is there anything wrong with disease, or competition for food or resources? If I gather and eat the food in a limited system then others in that system starve, yet my actions have not been willful for them to starve and I have not acted with violence towards them, yet say that if I do not do this then they will eat the same food and I will starve. Say that instead of a person I am a wolf and there are only so many deer or rabbits, is the moral aspect of the situation something that changes depending on what kind of animal we are talking about? Is it wrong for people, but ok for wolves? Or dolphins? Elephants? Spiders? Bacteria?

Cruelty like kindness enriches life, all life, and is involved with survival itself. If I share food with my pack, this is kindness, but if my pack guards a kill from another animal that wishes to feed that same kindness is also in context cruel. Perhaps cruelty and kindness do not exist in and of themselves, rather they are experiences we have, attributions we make, but not things that exist unto themselves...?

Now consider that if it is not cruel for the wolves to compete, is it cruel when humans do the same thing intentionally? When we wage a war for territory or resources are we being cruel or acting as mammals? When we defend our territories and take life because it has encroached, or because it lives in territory we want to expand to, is that an act of cruelty?

I read that cruelty is defined as:

callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

When wolves kill their prey they appear to enjoy it. When a cat plays with the mouse, it appears to enjoy it. Both appear to be indifferent. Is it wrong for the wolf or the cat? Is it wrong for the person?


When a religious devotee endures hunger, are they not being indifferent to their own pain?
When one finds bliss in their own pain, are they being cruel to themselves?

 

[hug46]

When a cat plays with the mouse, it appears to enjoy it. Both appear to be indifferent. Is it wrong for the wolf or the cat? Is it wrong for the person?

The purpose is to attain that state of interconnectedness and to be one with the universe and I don't mean just by understanding the concept, because that is easy. I mean by actually being there in every moment. In my opinion that is something that takes discipline and hard work.

I think that cats and other animals live in the moment and are therefore spiritual beings (if Elpos description is anything to go by) . Maybe by trying to transcend the selfish, self serving and blind cruelty of nature we are veering away from the truly simple spiritual path of eating, sleeping and mating. To find spirituality we must return to our animalstic ways. As a society we are misguidedly going in the wrong direction down a blind alley of good intentions.

Or maybe it is an impossibilty to live a truly uncruel existence as it breaks a fundamental law of nature. Cruelty is as imporatant for us as the air we breath.

 

[Elpo]

When a cat plays with the mouse, it appears to enjoy it. Both appear to be indifferent. Is it wrong for the wolf or the cat? Is it wrong for the person?

The purpose is to attain that state of interconnectedness and to be one with the universe and I don't mean just by understanding the concept, because that is easy. I mean by actually being there in every moment. In my opinion that is something that takes discipline and hard work.

I think that cats and other animals live in the moment and are therefore spiritual beings (if Elpos description is anything to go by) . Maybe by trying to transcend the selfish, self serving and blind cruelty of nature we are veering away from the truly simple spiritual path of eating, sleeping and mating. To find spirituality we must return to our animalstic ways. As a society we are misguidedly going in the wrong direction down a blind alley of good intentions.

Or maybe it is an impossibilty to live a truly uncruel existence as it breaks a fundamental law of nature. Cruelty is as imporatant for us as the air we breath.

I actually do not know if animals are always in that state. I don't believe it to be the case. I think that we as humans have the possibility to reach a "higher" state. Actually Nietzsche places humans between animals and the Superman, meaning that we have the possibilty to go beyond humanity.

I personally do not agree with Albert's point of view that nature has no goal. You can't know this, this is just an opinion. And isn't any adaptation goal oriented? How can you adapt without any goal? At this moment in my life I believe firmly that nature arises from consciousness (this is not yet proven of course but not dis-proven either) and I do agree that cruelty is something we have invented and something we give meaning to.

The biggest difference is that humans have the ability to make the rational choice. That is a very big responsibility therefor making it harder for us to choose between good and bad. The fact that we can attach a positive or negative emotion to something gives us the choice to do it or leave it. And once you reach that stage of interconnectedness, why would you cause anything or anyone harm?
Maybe this sounds very much like a utopia but think about it this way, the very fact that we can even think about it or imagine it, doesn't just that make it even possible and worth going for?

 

[jbark]

Necessity is itself a notion coined by us. There is no necessity in nature, only the inexorable force to continue and prevail. "Cruelty" and "necessity" are interpretations of limited minds who strive to understand the ineffable, a child blurting out in pride TWO and THREE, P, D, S and R when placed in front of this:

EDIT : for some reason this formula is illegible when I upload it here. GENERAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION

 

[edge2054]

The biggest difference is that humans have the ability to make the rational choice. That is a very big responsibility therefor making it harder for us to choose between good and bad. The fact that we can attach a positive or negative emotion to something gives us the choice to do it or leave it. And once you reach that stage of interconnectedness, why would you cause anything or anyone harm?
Maybe this sounds very much like a utopia but think about it this way, the very fact that we can even think about it or imagine it, doesn't just that make it even possible and worth going for?

Are our positive and negative emotions really morality though or are they simply our preferences based on past experiences and impressions?

I'm pretty big into animal rights, my wife and I tend to avoid industrialized meat and eat a lot of beans and rice instead. That said, where does it end? Does a bean have Buddha nature? Does a tree I cut down to build my house? At what point do we go back to living in the jungle in houses built out of leaves and who dies of starvation in the meantime? My kids? Your brothers, aunts, uncles, sisters, cousins?

I'm certainly all for avoiding unnecessary suffering and I don't believe that nature relishes in cruelty. I believe that this is almost certainly a human trait that's arisen as a result of a lot of self-denial and shame (misery loves company after all). But I also wouldn't go so far as to call nature kind either. Life is hard. We climbed towards the light and probably wiped out countless other variations of life to get where we are. It's a struggle, eat and be eaten. In the end we're all worm food anyway (well at least I plan to be ).

 

[tango]

When a cat plays with an injured mouse, this is not cruel

My hamster assured me it's cruel, unnecessary, and despicable. He also believes cats should not exist.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

A river adapts without goal.

Adaptation in nature is perhaps not about an end goal or purpose. I have read wise words saying the purpose of existence is to exist, this is to say it is not to reach a state or destination, but to simply be. Perhaps the purpose of adaptation is to be, such as the evolution of succulence in plants allows them to be, in such conditions where other non-succulent plants cannot be, this is ot so much a goal of a destination as a goal of merely existing. Perhaps the goal of nature is nature, to be, and since to exist is 'now' it cannot actually be a goal per say, for it cannot be obtained, only lost.

When a rose bush bears seeds, is it attempting any more than being? That a rose has thorns, is this cruel? Is the indifference of the rose to the pain it causes cruelty? And should the rose evolve past this ability to inflict pain, what then protects it? If it is unprotected would it not be more likely to cease to be when a rose eating beast wanders by? Is cruelty any different?


We may speak of needed and uneeded cruelty, the hamster has, and the cat has no basic need to toy with the mouse, but is such play wrong?

Perhaps intent is everything and the only wrong is a choice to be cruel by intending cruelty? This however, only individuals may affect and control, not a species or culture or population, for it involved individual will and choice.

 

[Aviator]

I this thread.

 

[hug46]

I think that we as humans have the possibility to reach a "higher" state. Actually Nietzsche places humans between animals and the Superman, meaning that we have the possibilty to go beyond humanity.

I am not sure about reaching a higher state. I think that it is born out of frustration with being in the current state and not living in the moment. Similar to feeling that you have to climb a social ladder and keep up with the joneses to be happy with yourself.

We are already in the higher state. We always have been and always will be. It"s just that we don"t know which side our bread is buttered and need to wake up and smell the coffee.

If you keep thinking that you have to attain a higher state, where does it end? Like climbing a mountain and never reaching the summit. I think that we love to torture ourselves by thinking "yes life is great.....but it could be better!"

Does the higher spiritual state entail morality and not being cruel? Or does it transcend such ideas and you can get away with being a complete shit to people?

 

[The Unknowing]

Nature isn't cruel by intention. It is merely setting the path for evolution of all life. I love the chaos, it keeps things interesting

 

[Elpo]

I think that we as humans have the possibility to reach a "higher" state. Actually Nietzsche places humans between animals and the Superman, meaning that we have the possibilty to go beyond humanity.

I am not sure about reaching a higher state. I think that it is born out of frustration with being in the current state and not living in the moment. Similar to feeling that you have to climb a social ladder and keep up with the joneses to be happy with yourself.

We are already in the higher state. We always have been and always will be. It"s just that we don"t know which side our bread is buttered and need to wake up and smell the coffee.

If you keep thinking that you have to attain a higher state, where does it end? Like climbing a mountain and never reaching the summit. I think that we love to torture ourselves by thinking "yes life is great.....but it could be better!"

Does the higher spiritual state entail morality and not being cruel? Or does it transcend such ideas and you can get away with being a complete shit to people?

Living in the moment is the higher state I'm referring to. It's just a way to put it

 

[hug46]

Living in the moment is the higher state I'm referring to. It's just a way to put it

Then i think that we may be in agreement and that i could be a deeply spiritual being without even realising it.

What would you class as living in the moment? Would you class a cruel act as living in the moment?
If i was to sleep with someone elses girlfriend without their knowledge. Would i be living in the moment, in that i was seeking the union of love between 2 people but also committing an act of cruel treachery to the boyfriend?

Also do you think it is possible to become completely in the moment? We have to plan our futures to an extent. Pay our bills, work out how we are going to eat over the following days and how our actions will affect other people. Do you think living in the moment conflicts with our responsibilities to ourselves and to others?

 

[Elpo]

Living in the moment for me doesn't mean just do what you feel at any time or place. That is a dangerous thought to have in my opinion. For me it means be at peace with yourself and your environment as much as possible.

In that aspect I think it is possible to not be as cruel as we in our society are in these times. We are cruel to other humans, animals and the planet. Being cruel for me is hurting someone or something on purpose without any practical goal. If you sleep with someone's girlfriend you are hurting that someone by your actions. You could easily avoid that.

If you wanna get laid go ahead, but in my opinion that is not living in the moment.
I believe that when a certain state of mind is reached these kind of choices are easily dismissed.

 

[hug46]

Living in the moment for me doesn't mean just do what you feel at any time or place. That is a dangerous thought to have in my opinion. For me it means be at peace with yourself and your environment as much as possible.

In that aspect I think it is possible to not be as cruel as we in our society are in these times. We are cruel to other humans, animals and the planet. Being cruel for me is hurting someone or something on purpose without any practical goal. If you sleep with someone's girlfriend you are hurting that someone by your actions. You could easily avoid that.

If you wanna get laid go ahead, but in my opinion that is not living in the moment.
I believe that when a certain state of mind is reached these kind of choices are easily dismissed.

I have met a few people over the years that have been quite at peace with themselves and their environments but have appeared to me to be callous and sometimes cruel, atleast in my opinion. Is cruelty really ok if you have a practical goal??

There are some blatantly obvious acts of cruelty but where do we draw the line between cruelty and ignorance?

In the case of sleeping with someone elses girlfriend, perhaps the two perpetrators have a connection and it is not just about getting laid. Perhaps the result of that particular piece of cruelty is that 2 people end up by being together in a state of happiness and enrich eachother"s lives. Thereby achieving a higher state but causing pain to another person in the process. Is it all fair in love and war?
We sometimes just want to get laid because we are driven by the natural urge to procreate. To carry on the species, sometimes we have to be cruel.

I guess i equate the higher state to spirituality and i often wonder whether it is necessary to be a nice person to be spiritual. Or does being in the higher state help to make you become a good person? And if it does, do you end up getting trampled on because you are not cruel enough?

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

I think there is a question of "what makes for an act of deliberate cruelty?"
is cheating a deliberate cruelty?

I agree it can be, but perhaps some things are not clear and situations vary in many ways and right and wrong are not always as obvious as we would like them to be.

I agree that an act of deliberate cruelty is wrong, but is the mark of such deliberate action found more in intention than in the act itself?

TO kill can be cruel, but could it not also be an act of mercy that is asked for?

Thus perhaps the mark of cruelty is not found in the act itself so much as the intention in those who act?