But reality is concepts. Reality is formula, and context. I’m asking about the link between life gravitating towards forests and nature and the existence of concepts and programming. If nature is exposed, it can lose its value, but is this reality true? Does nature have value in the first place to be lost?
Values is energies.
When an organism values something, its energies spike and the object is duplicated in it’s consciousness.
What’s the significance of that? The duplication of something?
It is what it is. When you value something, you form neurons that mirror it’s image. And you think about it alot.
The more neurons associated with that, the more you value it.
So when a tree is valued, neurons in the brain form which look like the tree?
No. Only frustration with people and societies. I do not mind nature having power.
Would you agree then that news media (like CNN or BBC) should report anyone on Earth as trees and planets?
No, because as we all know humans have no qualms destroying the rainforest.
Is that a reference to the question about news media?
What do you mean?
That all subjects of any country get identified by CNN or BBC as trees and planets; people including the current rebels in Turkey, or the fans of the MCU, or anyone who’s ever visited a nightclub, or worked in any industry etc. Just anyone.
Why would they be identified as plants or trees? Plants bring life, I do not believe they destroy it.
That isn’t destroying life in my view. It is recycling it. The trap must live to give.
Tell me, what do we humans give to the world or the rest of the cycle of life? What does society give back hm? Oh right, absolutely fucking nothing.
I love when people make sarcastic comments like that without paying attention to the entire picture.
If you need to live through means of sustenance but also GIVE back equally, is that true destruction?
That’s like saying because a tree absorbs carbon that it destroys it, regardless of GIVING oxygen back.
It’s a question I ask all the time; how does it make sense, that human life needs to feed on other life, yet the source of existence encompasses all life?
Ants. Spiders. Rabbits. Ducks. Birds. All of these life forms get destroyed, yet they’re as much the reason of life as Brexit voters, or any American citizen. Could the answer to the puzzle be this discussion?
We hardly fit into the cycle… This planet would go fine without us being here to perceive it. Take away the snake you have a rodent problem, take away a mosquito frogs may cease to exist. Now take away a human and watch every thing come back to vibrant life. We are a cancer on this planet, to view otherwise is naive, there is no evidence I have seen personally or at all for that matter to show we give or do anything good for this planet, what we do, we do for ourselves, without balancing the cycle or giving back.
Turd likes hanging out in the lobbies of McDonalds and LongJohnSilvers. Definitely not much of a nature lover.
Even when he was stranded out in beautiful majestic Hawaii we would hear stories of him huddled around a beach diner eating whole entire cans of SPAM. Like, who the fuck does that in Hawaii anyways?
I live in a town of less than 200 people and I love it when city fuckers start giving lectures about nature.
I live in a town of less than 200 people and I love it when city fuckers start giving lectures about nature.
[/quote]
What do they talk about? Are they environmentalists?