A living thing has all the attributes of living. One of the most imprortant one is capability to receive the stimulus. And, the second one is the capablity to adjust according to the circumstances.
All living beings have to perfom certain common functions(unity).
Diversity stems from the genes, and timing of action.Explain the phrase “life’s dual nature of unity and diversity.” And define what is a living thing?
A living thing is a being which is capable of continually deliviering spiritual or physical activities to bring about its possibility of survival and growth. When such an active delivery ends, a life naturally comes to its end although an afterlife could be rewarded as stated in some faiths. For more detail, please visit: www.ForMeFirst.com.Explain the phrase “life’s dual nature of unity and diversity.” And define what is a living thing?
the more things change, the more things stay the same. the sea changes colors, but the sea does not change. ~ ~ ~ if it's of the creator, it is alive. thanks, toni
Monday, November 30, 2009
1960ish movie on living in nature/peregrine falcons?
I am trying to remember this movie that I remember really loving when I was a teen (in the 80s). The movie was earlier, like around mid 1960s, and it involved this kid who was influenced by Thoreau and carried around/quoted from Walden. He went into the woods to see if he could survive on his own in the winter. He lived in this tree he had burned out and observed the habits of peregrine falcons. Cant remember the title. Thanks.1960ish movie on living in nature/peregrine falcons?
Maybe ';My Side of the Mountain';?
Maybe ';My Side of the Mountain';?
How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
first of all, that very question shows the change. before the advent of our concept of civilization, humans didn't live with nature at all. they were just living, they were nature.
civilization is the direct result of hardcore agricultre, that is, producing more food then needed. this leads to an increased population because the food surplus is feeding more people. contray to common belief, increased food production is not a solution for famine but is a cause of famine.
as the population increases, food production increases, as food supply increases, the population as a whole increases.
after several generations, there are too many people for the land to support(famine), and people need to expand. this is when they organize themselves in towns, cities and kngdoms. the need to expand leads to wars of conquest. also, the need to increase food supplies leads to the kiling of unwanted and unneeded plants and animals. only the species needed for agriculture are kept.How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
Civilization is a culture of oppression and occupation. In order to objectify others (plants, non-human animals, or other humans) you need to see them as less-than, otherwise you'd be less likely to kill them without thought.
There are some destructive tribal cultures but civilization by far takes the cake. The reason for this is that civilization, as I said, is a culture of occupation. It constantly needs more and more, and will use more and more until there is nothing left. The cultural mythology is that civilization is the ';right'; way to live, that everyone should live this way or be disposed of. This mindset destroys diversity (both ecological and human cultures). Any biologist will tell you that the more diverse an area, the more stable. With that said, civilization leads to more and more instability (environmentally, health, etc).
Civilization isn't very human-friendly even for those that live in it. Its a very controlling culture that encourages those in power to use violence to control, while telling those on the bottom that self-defense is not allowed. It drastically increases stress, mental and physical disorders (the majority of diseases we now suffer from are largely created by civilization (cancer, heart disease)), reduces our leisure time while reducing our nutrient levels.
In other words, it sucks. Other cultures are much more in tune with life and living.How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
There was so much truth in this answer I think it is worth repeating.
Civilization is a culture of oppression and occupation. In order to objectify others (plants, non-human animals, or other humans) you need to see them as less-than, otherwise you'd be less likely to kill them without thought.
There are some destructive tribal cultures but civilization by far takes the cake. The reason for this is that civilization, as I said, is a culture of occupation. It constantly needs more and more, and will use more and more until there is nothing left. The cultural mythology is that civilization is the ';right'; way to live, that everyone should live this way or be disposed of. This mindset destroys diversity (both ecological and human cultures). Any biologist will tell you that the more diverse an area, the more stable. With that said, civilization leads to more and more instability (environmentally, health, etc).
Civilization isn't very human-friendly even for those that live in it. Its a very controlling culture that encourages those in power to use violence to control, while telling those on the bottom that self-defense is not allowed. It drastically increases stress, mental and physical disorders (the majority of diseases we now suffer from are largely created by civilization (cancer, heart disease)), reduces our leisure time while reducing our nutrient levels.
In other words, it sucks. Other cultures are much more in tune with life and living.
Source(s):
Derrick Jensen, Daniel Quinn, biology, anthrology, psychology, etc. papers
civilization is the direct result of hardcore agricultre, that is, producing more food then needed. this leads to an increased population because the food surplus is feeding more people. contray to common belief, increased food production is not a solution for famine but is a cause of famine.
as the population increases, food production increases, as food supply increases, the population as a whole increases.
after several generations, there are too many people for the land to support(famine), and people need to expand. this is when they organize themselves in towns, cities and kngdoms. the need to expand leads to wars of conquest. also, the need to increase food supplies leads to the kiling of unwanted and unneeded plants and animals. only the species needed for agriculture are kept.How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
Civilization is a culture of oppression and occupation. In order to objectify others (plants, non-human animals, or other humans) you need to see them as less-than, otherwise you'd be less likely to kill them without thought.
There are some destructive tribal cultures but civilization by far takes the cake. The reason for this is that civilization, as I said, is a culture of occupation. It constantly needs more and more, and will use more and more until there is nothing left. The cultural mythology is that civilization is the ';right'; way to live, that everyone should live this way or be disposed of. This mindset destroys diversity (both ecological and human cultures). Any biologist will tell you that the more diverse an area, the more stable. With that said, civilization leads to more and more instability (environmentally, health, etc).
Civilization isn't very human-friendly even for those that live in it. Its a very controlling culture that encourages those in power to use violence to control, while telling those on the bottom that self-defense is not allowed. It drastically increases stress, mental and physical disorders (the majority of diseases we now suffer from are largely created by civilization (cancer, heart disease)), reduces our leisure time while reducing our nutrient levels.
In other words, it sucks. Other cultures are much more in tune with life and living.How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
There was so much truth in this answer I think it is worth repeating.
Civilization is a culture of oppression and occupation. In order to objectify others (plants, non-human animals, or other humans) you need to see them as less-than, otherwise you'd be less likely to kill them without thought.
There are some destructive tribal cultures but civilization by far takes the cake. The reason for this is that civilization, as I said, is a culture of occupation. It constantly needs more and more, and will use more and more until there is nothing left. The cultural mythology is that civilization is the ';right'; way to live, that everyone should live this way or be disposed of. This mindset destroys diversity (both ecological and human cultures). Any biologist will tell you that the more diverse an area, the more stable. With that said, civilization leads to more and more instability (environmentally, health, etc).
Civilization isn't very human-friendly even for those that live in it. Its a very controlling culture that encourages those in power to use violence to control, while telling those on the bottom that self-defense is not allowed. It drastically increases stress, mental and physical disorders (the majority of diseases we now suffer from are largely created by civilization (cancer, heart disease)), reduces our leisure time while reducing our nutrient levels.
In other words, it sucks. Other cultures are much more in tune with life and living.
Source(s):
Derrick Jensen, Daniel Quinn, biology, anthrology, psychology, etc. papers
Why do you suppose nature has made it possible for the smallest living thing to be able to kill the largest?
It's all part of the great cosmic balanceWhy do you suppose nature has made it possible for the smallest living thing to be able to kill the largest?
Because ALL life seeks to manipulate the environment in a way which benefits itself/it's species. Virii don't seek to kill their hosts, (it's bad for them if they are stuck inside a dead piece of meat!) It's just they make assumptions about how it's environment behaves, and sometime those assumptions end up killing the host.
If the smallest things work well with larger things it's called Symbiosis, if doesn't work well it's called illness.Why do you suppose nature has made it possible for the smallest living thing to be able to kill the largest?
All living creatures need defense mechanisms so they are able to survive.
The ones that don't have these mechanisms either a) die out, or b) evolve so they can keep on living.
So the species that are alive today have evolved in such a way that they are able to defend themselves from predators and thus survive.
It's evolution.
Exactly, beside just think about the little literal machine in the flagella, there is no possible way nature and science alone could ever make that. Also with the idea of evolution the creater himself Darwin something, said if there is ever any more complex thing found then it would prove my theory wrong, or at least his words sounded like and meant that. Not only that but some accounts say he gave up on his own idea and became saved. God bless!
Er, because over the course of time the largest evolved from the smallest, and the nucleic acid sequence recognition allows the smallest to take advantage of the RNA of the biggunz.
Because if the smallest living thing couldn't protect itself how would the species survive?
The smallest things work in tremendous quantities..there is it' s power
Look at ants..they work as one organism
(not mentioning bacteria)
The answer is simple. There are ten thousand ways to skin a cat. The smaller you are the more creative you have to be in order to take down the big ones. good example is humans and guns.
why this question would imply that there is a design element involved. now randomness does not have a design element...so how can this be? interesting question...but in all honesty, i have no idea.
Because the largest isn't necessarily the best, and that is not true in all cases.
you mean like a ant take down a elephant?...cant happen...
50000 ants take down a elephant...possible
perhaps to establish a new equilibrium that benefits only the perpetuation of life, not just human life.
Amazing about Divine Design, isn't it!? :)
Why-questions are futile in Biology.
There is no intent or purpose behind it.
That which is able to survive, survives.
Blessings :)
';Mother'; nature is a beaotch
Death is Nature's Way of telling you to chill.
Well a large anaconda goes great with a wet kitty :)
It's the balancing process. There's a fancy word for this but I can't recall at the time.
Irony?
Who say's that irony is not a valid reason?
because big things are made of small things
its nature dude.....we will never know
i don`t know
so we don't fill up with dead bodies
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
Because ALL life seeks to manipulate the environment in a way which benefits itself/it's species. Virii don't seek to kill their hosts, (it's bad for them if they are stuck inside a dead piece of meat!) It's just they make assumptions about how it's environment behaves, and sometime those assumptions end up killing the host.
If the smallest things work well with larger things it's called Symbiosis, if doesn't work well it's called illness.Why do you suppose nature has made it possible for the smallest living thing to be able to kill the largest?
All living creatures need defense mechanisms so they are able to survive.
The ones that don't have these mechanisms either a) die out, or b) evolve so they can keep on living.
So the species that are alive today have evolved in such a way that they are able to defend themselves from predators and thus survive.
It's evolution.
Exactly, beside just think about the little literal machine in the flagella, there is no possible way nature and science alone could ever make that. Also with the idea of evolution the creater himself Darwin something, said if there is ever any more complex thing found then it would prove my theory wrong, or at least his words sounded like and meant that. Not only that but some accounts say he gave up on his own idea and became saved. God bless!
Er, because over the course of time the largest evolved from the smallest, and the nucleic acid sequence recognition allows the smallest to take advantage of the RNA of the biggunz.
Because if the smallest living thing couldn't protect itself how would the species survive?
The smallest things work in tremendous quantities..there is it' s power
Look at ants..they work as one organism
(not mentioning bacteria)
The answer is simple. There are ten thousand ways to skin a cat. The smaller you are the more creative you have to be in order to take down the big ones. good example is humans and guns.
why this question would imply that there is a design element involved. now randomness does not have a design element...so how can this be? interesting question...but in all honesty, i have no idea.
Because the largest isn't necessarily the best, and that is not true in all cases.
you mean like a ant take down a elephant?...cant happen...
50000 ants take down a elephant...possible
perhaps to establish a new equilibrium that benefits only the perpetuation of life, not just human life.
Amazing about Divine Design, isn't it!? :)
Why-questions are futile in Biology.
There is no intent or purpose behind it.
That which is able to survive, survives.
Blessings :)
';Mother'; nature is a beaotch
Death is Nature's Way of telling you to chill.
Well a large anaconda goes great with a wet kitty :)
It's the balancing process. There's a fancy word for this but I can't recall at the time.
Irony?
Who say's that irony is not a valid reason?
because big things are made of small things
its nature dude.....we will never know
i don`t know
so we don't fill up with dead bodies
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
People what you do for a living? tell nature of your job? are you satisfied with your present job?
please give personal views. those who are not in a job may write retired, unemployed,taking care of home ,depending on what ever is situation with you. thanks.People what you do for a living? tell nature of your job? are you satisfied with your present job?
Components Engineer in Enterprise Storage industry. Mostly, my job is cushy but boring at times.People what you do for a living? tell nature of your job? are you satisfied with your present job?
Military and that is all I am allowed to tell you.
I work in retail and I stand at the cash register and put mercandise on the shelves. I am not currently satisfied at my job but it is a job. I have a bachelors degree and worked in social work for a long time and now I don't kow what I want to do with my life.
I work from home part-time as a medical transcriptionist and I also teach part-time at a local college one night a week (which is tonight).
AND full time I'm a stay-home mom to my 3-year-old daughter.
Totally satisfied with all of my jobs.
How about you??
I work in an office doing billing %26amp; payroll for a company. It's not exactly fulfilling, but I have yet to go back to school. In some ways it's cool because I have a lot of freedom as far as taking time off for vacations and stuff, but then on the other hand it's mind-numbing work. I guess you take the good with the bad and try to find a balance.
Currently I am unemployed with a disabilty.
i pimp ot my wife
I am janitor in a high school. The nature of the job is to clean up after messy people, except when there ball games in the gyms that I clean, then I got a mess on my hands which is worse than the rest of the school. Heck no I am not satisfied. I hate this job and can't wait for something better.coolest myspace
Components Engineer in Enterprise Storage industry. Mostly, my job is cushy but boring at times.People what you do for a living? tell nature of your job? are you satisfied with your present job?
Military and that is all I am allowed to tell you.
I work in retail and I stand at the cash register and put mercandise on the shelves. I am not currently satisfied at my job but it is a job. I have a bachelors degree and worked in social work for a long time and now I don't kow what I want to do with my life.
I work from home part-time as a medical transcriptionist and I also teach part-time at a local college one night a week (which is tonight).
AND full time I'm a stay-home mom to my 3-year-old daughter.
Totally satisfied with all of my jobs.
How about you??
I work in an office doing billing %26amp; payroll for a company. It's not exactly fulfilling, but I have yet to go back to school. In some ways it's cool because I have a lot of freedom as far as taking time off for vacations and stuff, but then on the other hand it's mind-numbing work. I guess you take the good with the bad and try to find a balance.
Currently I am unemployed with a disabilty.
i pimp ot my wife
I am janitor in a high school. The nature of the job is to clean up after messy people, except when there ball games in the gyms that I clean, then I got a mess on my hands which is worse than the rest of the school. Heck no I am not satisfied. I hate this job and can't wait for something better.
What per cent of the world's population live in nature's harm's way?
I saw the number once in a report and have forgotton it, need some help. Nature Harm's way was living near or on a volcano, fault line, or low lying coastal areas suspectable to typhon or huricane flooding.What per cent of the world's population live in nature's harm's way?
100% of the population can be harmed by natural phenomenon, because there is not a place on earth that isn't prone to some kind of potentially dangerous occurrence.What per cent of the world's population live in nature's harm's way?
100%
100% of the population can be harmed by natural phenomenon, because there is not a place on earth that isn't prone to some kind of potentially dangerous occurrence.What per cent of the world's population live in nature's harm's way?
100%
Does the thought of living in the woods hearing only gentle breezes and surrounding nature comfort your soul?
Oh yes. I would love to take a 2 or 3 week vacation to the Bahamas.Does the thought of living in the woods hearing only gentle breezes and surrounding nature comfort your soul?
No nature's boring. I need the big city noisesDoes the thought of living in the woods hearing only gentle breezes and surrounding nature comfort your soul?
Yes.
No nature's boring. I need the big city noisesDoes the thought of living in the woods hearing only gentle breezes and surrounding nature comfort your soul?
Yes.
Philosophy quote along the lines of ';it is human nature to try to improve living conditions.';?
Does anyone know a quote on human nature by a well known philosopher along the lines of ';it is human nature to try to improve living conditions.';Philosophy quote along the lines of ';it is human nature to try to improve living conditions.';?
No but there are a lot of ones along the lines of ';Its human nature to abuse your fellow man.';Philosophy quote along the lines of ';it is human nature to try to improve living conditions.';?
Assuming you want to learn how to do philosophy:
Since ';human nature'; as a term refers to ';The sum of qualities and traits shared by all humans,';
I don't believe you will find the quote you seek.
';To improve Living Conditions'; is a goal not a characteristic. And it is not the goal common of all human beings for well known reasons.
Any use of the term leads to a fallacy! The ';fallacy of misplaced concreteness';
';In the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, one commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or 'concrete' reality.
Whitehead proposed the fallacy in a discussion of the relation of spatial and temporal location of objects. Whitehead rejects the notion that a concrete physical object in the universe can be described simply in spatial or temporal extension. Rather, the object must be described as a field located in both space and time.
';...among the primary elements of nature as apprehended in our immediate experience, there is no element whatever which possesses this character of simple location. ... [Instead,] I hold that by a process of constructive abstraction we can arrive at abstractions which are the simply located bits of material, and at other abstractions which are the minds included in the scientific scheme. Accordingly, the real error is an example of what I have termed: The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.'; Whitehead (1997), p. 58.
';[The Fallacy] is merely the accidental error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete... This fallacy is the occasion of great confusion in philosophy.'; Whitehead (1997), p. 52. ';
ref: excerpt from ---%26gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_鈥?/a>
I hope that helps you sort it out.
It sounds like a line from the movie AFRICAN QUEEN!
Katherine Hepburn's character says it. After Bogart, as Charlie Allnut, said, ';A man takes a drop too much once in awhile, it's only human nature.';
She replies, ';Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.';
No but there are a lot of ones along the lines of ';Its human nature to abuse your fellow man.';Philosophy quote along the lines of ';it is human nature to try to improve living conditions.';?
Assuming you want to learn how to do philosophy:
Since ';human nature'; as a term refers to ';The sum of qualities and traits shared by all humans,';
I don't believe you will find the quote you seek.
';To improve Living Conditions'; is a goal not a characteristic. And it is not the goal common of all human beings for well known reasons.
Any use of the term leads to a fallacy! The ';fallacy of misplaced concreteness';
';In the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, one commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or 'concrete' reality.
Whitehead proposed the fallacy in a discussion of the relation of spatial and temporal location of objects. Whitehead rejects the notion that a concrete physical object in the universe can be described simply in spatial or temporal extension. Rather, the object must be described as a field located in both space and time.
';...among the primary elements of nature as apprehended in our immediate experience, there is no element whatever which possesses this character of simple location. ... [Instead,] I hold that by a process of constructive abstraction we can arrive at abstractions which are the simply located bits of material, and at other abstractions which are the minds included in the scientific scheme. Accordingly, the real error is an example of what I have termed: The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.'; Whitehead (1997), p. 58.
';[The Fallacy] is merely the accidental error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete... This fallacy is the occasion of great confusion in philosophy.'; Whitehead (1997), p. 52. ';
ref: excerpt from ---%26gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_鈥?/a>
I hope that helps you sort it out.
It sounds like a line from the movie AFRICAN QUEEN!
Katherine Hepburn's character says it. After Bogart, as Charlie Allnut, said, ';A man takes a drop too much once in awhile, it's only human nature.';
She replies, ';Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.';
Could you survive living off of nature/out in the deep woods if you had to?
I am not sure, but I would really try my best to live.Could you survive living off of nature/out in the deep woods if you had to?
I took survival training in the Army but it's been a while. I could probably make it a few days if I was forced to but truthfully I've gotten pretty spoiled over the past years. BUT...I'm strong and can do just about anything I set my mind to. I'm a survivor.
Peace, Love %26amp; HappinessCould you survive living off of nature/out in the deep woods if you had to?
i totally want to try that, but only with a camera crew
and an emergency rice challenge, if things start to get hairy.
ew. oh yeah. and a razor.
If I absolutely HAD TO, I guess I would whether I liked it or not, wouldn't I?
My training and survival instincts are very strong
Probably not.
I think at this point you have no choice in the matter. Unless your out there are your own choice.
Yes, I watched a lot of Man vs. Wild so I am now a self-proclaimed survivalist.
probably not lol
Yes, i live in the woods already...lol.
as long as there was a kfc out there
yes, most likely.
I've done it before, back in Utah. And Utah is rough on ya lol...
Nope, i would die of boredom.
I think so...
yes! I love nature.
Yes, I could.
yeah if I had to I would be ok
yes
no! i am a total girly girl!
I might if I really had to.
yes id give it my best
No. I'd be effed if I didn't have my flat iron and a blow dryer.
maybe. who knows?
I took survival training in the Army but it's been a while. I could probably make it a few days if I was forced to but truthfully I've gotten pretty spoiled over the past years. BUT...I'm strong and can do just about anything I set my mind to. I'm a survivor.
Peace, Love %26amp; HappinessCould you survive living off of nature/out in the deep woods if you had to?
i totally want to try that, but only with a camera crew
and an emergency rice challenge, if things start to get hairy.
ew. oh yeah. and a razor.
If I absolutely HAD TO, I guess I would whether I liked it or not, wouldn't I?
My training and survival instincts are very strong
Probably not.
I think at this point you have no choice in the matter. Unless your out there are your own choice.
Yes, I watched a lot of Man vs. Wild so I am now a self-proclaimed survivalist.
probably not lol
Yes, i live in the woods already...lol.
as long as there was a kfc out there
yes, most likely.
I've done it before, back in Utah. And Utah is rough on ya lol...
Nope, i would die of boredom.
I think so...
yes! I love nature.
Yes, I could.
yeah if I had to I would be ok
yes
no! i am a total girly girl!
I might if I really had to.
yes id give it my best
No. I'd be effed if I didn't have my flat iron and a blow dryer.
maybe. who knows?
Is human Superior than other living creatures in the nature?
It would depend on if you are talking generally or if you are talking about a specific area. Humans are not superior runners when compared to cheetas per say. The way I think human are superior is the ability to solve problems.
Example: People wanted to fly, didn't have wings so they invented the airplane.
However, there are other creatures that also solve problems.
To cut this short no, I don't think in whole humans are supirior to other creatures.Is human Superior than other living creatures in the nature?
I think as the world portrays everything, we portray ourselves as being superior to other creatures. I would say that we are superior in the sense that we can control the lives of many animals. We can easily capture most creature and we decide what we do with them.
But in my opinion, humans are animals although some people say ';don't act like an animal';. i think it's stupid, b/c we are animals although we say that because we think that animals and people are two different things and they aren't.
I think people are animals and are just the same as all of god's other creations although the talents or characteristic of others are different.Is human Superior than other living creatures in the nature?
We're supposed to be, but, the Meer Kats got it going on!
No. In some way or another, we're either:
food for something, small and weak without weaponry compared to something, or lack the sophisticated survival ability of something...
Example: People wanted to fly, didn't have wings so they invented the airplane.
However, there are other creatures that also solve problems.
To cut this short no, I don't think in whole humans are supirior to other creatures.Is human Superior than other living creatures in the nature?
I think as the world portrays everything, we portray ourselves as being superior to other creatures. I would say that we are superior in the sense that we can control the lives of many animals. We can easily capture most creature and we decide what we do with them.
But in my opinion, humans are animals although some people say ';don't act like an animal';. i think it's stupid, b/c we are animals although we say that because we think that animals and people are two different things and they aren't.
I think people are animals and are just the same as all of god's other creations although the talents or characteristic of others are different.Is human Superior than other living creatures in the nature?
We're supposed to be, but, the Meer Kats got it going on!
No. In some way or another, we're either:
food for something, small and weak without weaponry compared to something, or lack the sophisticated survival ability of something...
Does nature, force, or will give us motion of our living bodies?
Aristotle believed it was one of the three.
The sun, stars, and moon are all in motion and bodies moved by nature travel either downwards owing to their weight or upwards owing to their lightness but what is the case with heavenly bodies? Neither?
It is said that heavenly bodies motion is revolution in a circle, that their movement is voluntary for what stronger force compels them to travel in a manner contrary to their nature? What do you believe?Does nature, force, or will give us motion of our living bodies?
AS for heavenly bodies, they were set in motion by the initial explosion of creation. (big bang) . We haven't been observing the stars long enough to tell if they are slowly succumbing to entropy ,and will eventually slow down, stop, and collapse back into a singularity, but that is one theory. If not , it could be said that the WILL of God may be the energy input that keeps the universe from winding down.
As for our individual bodies, I believe it is our soul which animates our bodies by force of will. I have to will my arm to move, before the brain can send a signal to the muscle to make it move.Does nature, force, or will give us motion of our living bodies?
For every action (force) there is an equal and opposite action. A body at rest tends to stay at rest while a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
I think Newton explained it quite well.
Questions like this can never be decided until the various terms have been properly defined - otherwise we won't know what we're talking about.
God gave us a soul, which powers the body.
A body without a soul, is motionless
gravitycoolest myspace
The sun, stars, and moon are all in motion and bodies moved by nature travel either downwards owing to their weight or upwards owing to their lightness but what is the case with heavenly bodies? Neither?
It is said that heavenly bodies motion is revolution in a circle, that their movement is voluntary for what stronger force compels them to travel in a manner contrary to their nature? What do you believe?Does nature, force, or will give us motion of our living bodies?
AS for heavenly bodies, they were set in motion by the initial explosion of creation. (big bang) . We haven't been observing the stars long enough to tell if they are slowly succumbing to entropy ,and will eventually slow down, stop, and collapse back into a singularity, but that is one theory. If not , it could be said that the WILL of God may be the energy input that keeps the universe from winding down.
As for our individual bodies, I believe it is our soul which animates our bodies by force of will. I have to will my arm to move, before the brain can send a signal to the muscle to make it move.Does nature, force, or will give us motion of our living bodies?
For every action (force) there is an equal and opposite action. A body at rest tends to stay at rest while a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
I think Newton explained it quite well.
Questions like this can never be decided until the various terms have been properly defined - otherwise we won't know what we're talking about.
God gave us a soul, which powers the body.
A body without a soul, is motionless
gravity
Is there proof of a living god without reading the bible or nature?
None with, and none without. If you had ';proof';, you would not need ';faith';.Is there proof of a living god without reading the bible or nature?
Yes, the greatest proof of God is what many will never experience because of their denial of God. It is the Holy Spirit that indwells within your heart and you know without a doubt that God is real and true.Is there proof of a living god without reading the bible or nature?
Well, looking at nature with an open, objective mind does not show any evidence of a god. Otherwise, no there still is no evidence for any god.
There is only nature, and we are bound by its laws.
Sure. This Earth is speeding through space at 62,500mph, somebody must have it under control.
Is reading comic books proof that Batman and Robin are real dear ?
Yes, the greatest proof of God is what many will never experience because of their denial of God. It is the Holy Spirit that indwells within your heart and you know without a doubt that God is real and true.Is there proof of a living god without reading the bible or nature?
Well, looking at nature with an open, objective mind does not show any evidence of a god. Otherwise, no there still is no evidence for any god.
There is only nature, and we are bound by its laws.
Sure. This Earth is speeding through space at 62,500mph, somebody must have it under control.
Is reading comic books proof that Batman and Robin are real dear ?
Please introduce some literary or non-literary books about living in nature.?
I love nature and want to protect and enrich it. Please help me.Please introduce some literary or non-literary books about living in nature.?
Walden is the best known.
The Norton Book of Nature Writing is very good and comprehensive.
Also:
Into Thin Air
A Walk in the Woods
The World Without UsPlease introduce some literary or non-literary books about living in nature.?
Walden by Hendry David Thoreau
Really great book about nature and enjoying your life for all its worth and what you're living for.
Walden is the best known.
The Norton Book of Nature Writing is very good and comprehensive.
Also:
Into Thin Air
A Walk in the Woods
The World Without UsPlease introduce some literary or non-literary books about living in nature.?
Walden by Hendry David Thoreau
Really great book about nature and enjoying your life for all its worth and what you're living for.
I hate LIVING in this so called 'civilised' world? Where can i get back to NATURE?
I want to get away from you ignorant, greedy and materialistic people?I hate LIVING in this so called 'civilised' world? Where can i get back to NATURE?
in george bushs head thats empty and baronI hate LIVING in this so called 'civilised' world? Where can i get back to NATURE?
You should visit some parts of Canada. The mountains in BC are gorgeous, you will really feel at one with nature and removed from all the materialism.
The Yukon and Northwest territories will also be an experience like no other. Very peaceful.
We are of one mind. There are still many unspoilt places on this world. South Africa is where I have found mine. Hope you find yours soon.
You would enjoy Antarctica.
People are disturbed, ( not by things but how they see them) Epicitus 200BC...people are just human don't judge them by their faults you are just as guilty would you like society to cast you out because you lied you are a liar therefore unworthy to be human.. I think not, we learn to forgive the faults in others because we want to be forgiven...
Buddhist monastery in the desert.
And excuse me,, but I am not ignorant, greedy or materialistic.
I try to be kind and generous, and take care of people. I have a fairly high IQ and live in a small apartment. I recycle.
Honestly, you might try going fishing in a tent by a local lake. It will refresh you immensely, and you can return to your life, grateful for the conveniences, the computer, and bathroom, and comfy sofa that you take for granted now. You sound burnt out.
Vacation, NOW, before you buy a rifle.
How about Plum Village, France?
I agree, try moving to Sutherland in the NW of Scotalnd, it is half the size of Belgium with 13,000 population and is Europe's last wilderness. Life there is magnificent.
hit the lottery, retire, and buy island and crew. ye haw
Try building dry stone walls.Get a tent and live on the job.You will see the real countryside meet folk who care about the environment ,be making habitats for wild animals and find out how to preserve the past for the benefit of future generations.
Cave in a Himalayan Forest.
Not even the deepest depths of the ocean. There is nowhere left to go. Even the Antarctic is polluted, and melting fast.
You are stuck in the civilised world, because you are a product of it. You can't get back to nature because you were never there.
However, I am not particularly greedy or materialistic, though I am certainly ignorant, as are we all.
You could get away from people, if that is what you want, but you might find that you actually need the rest of the human race after a while.
When I feel like that, I just take a walk, but I'm not telling you where.
I am with you. I think those who have found a place to get away from the rest of the world aren't talking. Probably cause they wanna be left alone and are afraid that big businesses will come up and ruin where they are living.
Wilderness is a state of mind. And you know...you sound like you need to make some new friends? Do you have friends? Oh...that's right. You sound like you don't want to know anybody. Books are a great place to hide out. Unlike your computer, they are not interactive.
When you find it can I come with you?
Either that or I have to wait till I can finish my degree in anthropology and that is taking way to long.
Unfortunately, with 6 billion+ people on the planet, there's not enough nature left for all of us who want to get back to it.
Humans, like most other creatures on this planet, modify our environment to suit our needs. Ants do it, beavers do it, bacteria and protists do it, and people do it. This is natural. Wanting to return to some ';natural'; state is an escape from other people, not from civilization. Civilization is natural.
I think the land where Ted Kazinsky had his little cabin might be available, but they have removed his abode.
My advice is to simplify your life as much as possible, ride a bicycle when you can. Find a small town in which to live. Choose a way of making a living that you work with your hands and sell the product. Many people who have resigned themselves to live in the ';civilized'; world appreciate the sentiment you feel and will honor your humble existence.
Their are still lots of places you can go to get back to nature, even in USA/Canada. If you look around there are lots of places that are un-inhabited by people. You will get away from all us ignorant, greedy, materialistic people. You will also get away from all the really decent people that make up the majority of our society. You will have no access to the web, malls, fast foods, cars, TV, movies, etc etc etc. You know, all those things that people like you criticize and whine about every day but still use at every opportunity. The world is a wonderful place full of fantastic opportunities. A little more positive thinking on your part may help you take advantage of all the good stuff. Heck, you might even do some good for others,heaven forbid ! Good luck in finding your little acre of loneliness, unhappiness, and desperation.
You could try living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
But I bet you wouldn't like it!!
Listen, do you want to give something back, work with people that really care about what they do, live for a period of time in the outdoors with people who care about you and become your family.?
I felt like you and found Trailblazers (www.trailblazers.org) and it changed my life. Its an Experiential Outdoor Education programme in the states for disadvantaged kids. you should check out their web site and apply to work their next summer. It could change your life and you will never look back.
or if you live in the uk try www.ate.org.uk you work hard with kids but become part of something special
Spent a night in the rainforest and the birds and creatures will learn to respect you.
Try Auroville Community, Pondicherry, India. I think you will find loads of like minded people there.
Other - more drastic option - I heard they are selling lots on the moon. Try your luck there. You will be at ease there.
Go to the woods in the mountains somewhere....that's the only serenity you'll find here, unless you find it within.
In Africa
On the moon, you shan't be bothered by anyone... Bye!
You want nanotechnology, and you want to live a mono-agrarian lifestyle?
Let me assure you, YOU wouldn't stand a chance on a camping trip, let alone a serious backwoods lifestyle.
Think carefully: if you're willing to accept all the trouble that comes with ';uncivilized'; living, I'd recommend the undeveloped parts of South America or northern India.
Try Butlins !
desert island
or go and live in a jungle
VERY few people that have lived in the ';civilized'; world want to totally leave it behind...many like to go and VISIT nature and dabble BUT then return for the conveniences and amenities...like medicine and health care or family or intellectual stimulation or transportation or toilet paper or..........YOU can PICK and CHOOSE not to associate with ignorant, greedy, materialistic people...seek out or solicit those that are not....
in george bushs head thats empty and baronI hate LIVING in this so called 'civilised' world? Where can i get back to NATURE?
You should visit some parts of Canada. The mountains in BC are gorgeous, you will really feel at one with nature and removed from all the materialism.
The Yukon and Northwest territories will also be an experience like no other. Very peaceful.
We are of one mind. There are still many unspoilt places on this world. South Africa is where I have found mine. Hope you find yours soon.
You would enjoy Antarctica.
People are disturbed, ( not by things but how they see them) Epicitus 200BC...people are just human don't judge them by their faults you are just as guilty would you like society to cast you out because you lied you are a liar therefore unworthy to be human.. I think not, we learn to forgive the faults in others because we want to be forgiven...
Buddhist monastery in the desert.
And excuse me,, but I am not ignorant, greedy or materialistic.
I try to be kind and generous, and take care of people. I have a fairly high IQ and live in a small apartment. I recycle.
Honestly, you might try going fishing in a tent by a local lake. It will refresh you immensely, and you can return to your life, grateful for the conveniences, the computer, and bathroom, and comfy sofa that you take for granted now. You sound burnt out.
Vacation, NOW, before you buy a rifle.
How about Plum Village, France?
I agree, try moving to Sutherland in the NW of Scotalnd, it is half the size of Belgium with 13,000 population and is Europe's last wilderness. Life there is magnificent.
hit the lottery, retire, and buy island and crew. ye haw
Try building dry stone walls.Get a tent and live on the job.You will see the real countryside meet folk who care about the environment ,be making habitats for wild animals and find out how to preserve the past for the benefit of future generations.
Cave in a Himalayan Forest.
Not even the deepest depths of the ocean. There is nowhere left to go. Even the Antarctic is polluted, and melting fast.
You are stuck in the civilised world, because you are a product of it. You can't get back to nature because you were never there.
However, I am not particularly greedy or materialistic, though I am certainly ignorant, as are we all.
You could get away from people, if that is what you want, but you might find that you actually need the rest of the human race after a while.
When I feel like that, I just take a walk, but I'm not telling you where.
I am with you. I think those who have found a place to get away from the rest of the world aren't talking. Probably cause they wanna be left alone and are afraid that big businesses will come up and ruin where they are living.
Wilderness is a state of mind. And you know...you sound like you need to make some new friends? Do you have friends? Oh...that's right. You sound like you don't want to know anybody. Books are a great place to hide out. Unlike your computer, they are not interactive.
When you find it can I come with you?
Either that or I have to wait till I can finish my degree in anthropology and that is taking way to long.
Unfortunately, with 6 billion+ people on the planet, there's not enough nature left for all of us who want to get back to it.
Humans, like most other creatures on this planet, modify our environment to suit our needs. Ants do it, beavers do it, bacteria and protists do it, and people do it. This is natural. Wanting to return to some ';natural'; state is an escape from other people, not from civilization. Civilization is natural.
I think the land where Ted Kazinsky had his little cabin might be available, but they have removed his abode.
My advice is to simplify your life as much as possible, ride a bicycle when you can. Find a small town in which to live. Choose a way of making a living that you work with your hands and sell the product. Many people who have resigned themselves to live in the ';civilized'; world appreciate the sentiment you feel and will honor your humble existence.
Their are still lots of places you can go to get back to nature, even in USA/Canada. If you look around there are lots of places that are un-inhabited by people. You will get away from all us ignorant, greedy, materialistic people. You will also get away from all the really decent people that make up the majority of our society. You will have no access to the web, malls, fast foods, cars, TV, movies, etc etc etc. You know, all those things that people like you criticize and whine about every day but still use at every opportunity. The world is a wonderful place full of fantastic opportunities. A little more positive thinking on your part may help you take advantage of all the good stuff. Heck, you might even do some good for others,heaven forbid ! Good luck in finding your little acre of loneliness, unhappiness, and desperation.
You could try living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
But I bet you wouldn't like it!!
Listen, do you want to give something back, work with people that really care about what they do, live for a period of time in the outdoors with people who care about you and become your family.?
I felt like you and found Trailblazers (www.trailblazers.org) and it changed my life. Its an Experiential Outdoor Education programme in the states for disadvantaged kids. you should check out their web site and apply to work their next summer. It could change your life and you will never look back.
or if you live in the uk try www.ate.org.uk you work hard with kids but become part of something special
Spent a night in the rainforest and the birds and creatures will learn to respect you.
Try Auroville Community, Pondicherry, India. I think you will find loads of like minded people there.
Other - more drastic option - I heard they are selling lots on the moon. Try your luck there. You will be at ease there.
Go to the woods in the mountains somewhere....that's the only serenity you'll find here, unless you find it within.
In Africa
On the moon, you shan't be bothered by anyone... Bye!
You want nanotechnology, and you want to live a mono-agrarian lifestyle?
Let me assure you, YOU wouldn't stand a chance on a camping trip, let alone a serious backwoods lifestyle.
Think carefully: if you're willing to accept all the trouble that comes with ';uncivilized'; living, I'd recommend the undeveloped parts of South America or northern India.
Try Butlins !
desert island
or go and live in a jungle
VERY few people that have lived in the ';civilized'; world want to totally leave it behind...many like to go and VISIT nature and dabble BUT then return for the conveniences and amenities...like medicine and health care or family or intellectual stimulation or transportation or toilet paper or..........YOU can PICK and CHOOSE not to associate with ignorant, greedy, materialistic people...seek out or solicit those that are not....
Instead of worshiping God , is it not more rewarding to take care of nature, environment & entire living world?
including humanity and treating everybody with universally equal humane values %26amp; ethics. Also taking care of plants, animals, worms %26amp; insects holistically. Wont it be a wonderful world? Heaven anyone?Instead of worshiping God , is it not more rewarding to take care of nature, environment %26amp; entire living world?
';There is no heaven unless, we make it ourselves';Instead of worshiping God , is it not more rewarding to take care of nature, environment %26amp; entire living world?
Humans started to live in groups. The society put rules or disciplinary measures to keep the unity. Each group met often in a designated place to ascertain the unity. A mark was made to keep the place.
Now the mark is superior than the humans who made it.
Let us make our mark(Heaven).
Yes, taking care of what is right here and now is much more rewarding than something which probably doesn't exist. It's also more rewarding to make the best of what you have now, then fretting about the afterlife.
By taking care of nature, environment %26amp; entire living world, you eventually will find the way to GOD and understand who is GOD and who you are. That is the secret.
All that is real in me is God; all that is real in God is I. The gulf between God and me is thus bridged. Thus by knowing God, we find that the kingdom of heaven is within us.
No. Because on the day of Judgment, it will be announced that people should go to their Lords for whose pleasure they did the virtues. So all atheists and believers of false gods will be left clueless, where to go.
Muhammad Javed Iqbal
Absolutely, yes.
Definitely.
';I have a DREAM...that one day....the whole world...will be a zen garden!';
seriously, that would be awesome.
Not only is it more rewarding, it's a lot more effective as well.
What you mentioned is one way of worshiping God.
That would be nice.
For many of us, those are the same thing.
maybe. but will worms take u to heaven?
If everyone knows and worship GOD, we don't have to worry about anything.
Because everyone will follow GODs command
';There is no heaven unless, we make it ourselves';Instead of worshiping God , is it not more rewarding to take care of nature, environment %26amp; entire living world?
Humans started to live in groups. The society put rules or disciplinary measures to keep the unity. Each group met often in a designated place to ascertain the unity. A mark was made to keep the place.
Now the mark is superior than the humans who made it.
Let us make our mark(Heaven).
Yes, taking care of what is right here and now is much more rewarding than something which probably doesn't exist. It's also more rewarding to make the best of what you have now, then fretting about the afterlife.
By taking care of nature, environment %26amp; entire living world, you eventually will find the way to GOD and understand who is GOD and who you are. That is the secret.
All that is real in me is God; all that is real in God is I. The gulf between God and me is thus bridged. Thus by knowing God, we find that the kingdom of heaven is within us.
No. Because on the day of Judgment, it will be announced that people should go to their Lords for whose pleasure they did the virtues. So all atheists and believers of false gods will be left clueless, where to go.
Muhammad Javed Iqbal
Absolutely, yes.
Definitely.
';I have a DREAM...that one day....the whole world...will be a zen garden!';
seriously, that would be awesome.
Not only is it more rewarding, it's a lot more effective as well.
What you mentioned is one way of worshiping God.
That would be nice.
For many of us, those are the same thing.
maybe. but will worms take u to heaven?
If everyone knows and worship GOD, we don't have to worry about anything.
Because everyone will follow GODs command
Are we not living against nature?
I would say that we , humans , are NOT living naturally and that is why everything else is appearing as unnatural to us. Earlier we simply accepted nature as it was . Not anymore. The constant search ...Why this? ... why that?..... why these? .... is driving man to challenge nature.
River? Put a dam across.Ocean? Try under water explosions. Sky? pollute it. Nature does not bother. It will tolerate evrything. It is the does...man... who will suffer for his misdeeds.Are we not living against nature?
We're not really living against it, we're just trying to prove that we can exist despite it.Are we not living against nature?
Philosophers have, at different times, tried to explain what it would be to live 'according to nature'.
The ancient Stoics based their philosophy on living in accord with nature. The Chinese philosophy of Taoism is also based on this idea. The great French philosopher Rousseau also decried our unnatural way of living.
The equally great 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, in 'On Nature,' however, argued that nature is a-moral. She can bless us with sunshine or kill us with storms. Thus, nature has nothing much to teach us about how to live with one another. To discover how to live, we must rely on our own civilized reason and experience.
The Stoics at least would agree that logical thinking is a key in learning to live according to nature.
So maybe we need a clear definition of 'living according to nature' that can build on these various and seemingly contradictory ideas.
of course we are
yes. Civilization is by definition artifical.
yes
Around the industrial revolution, man began to seperate himself from nature by using machines to produce for himself, rather than by making everything from what nature would afford him.
River? Put a dam across.Ocean? Try under water explosions. Sky? pollute it. Nature does not bother. It will tolerate evrything. It is the does...man... who will suffer for his misdeeds.Are we not living against nature?
We're not really living against it, we're just trying to prove that we can exist despite it.Are we not living against nature?
Philosophers have, at different times, tried to explain what it would be to live 'according to nature'.
The ancient Stoics based their philosophy on living in accord with nature. The Chinese philosophy of Taoism is also based on this idea. The great French philosopher Rousseau also decried our unnatural way of living.
The equally great 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, in 'On Nature,' however, argued that nature is a-moral. She can bless us with sunshine or kill us with storms. Thus, nature has nothing much to teach us about how to live with one another. To discover how to live, we must rely on our own civilized reason and experience.
The Stoics at least would agree that logical thinking is a key in learning to live according to nature.
So maybe we need a clear definition of 'living according to nature' that can build on these various and seemingly contradictory ideas.
of course we are
yes. Civilization is by definition artifical.
yes
Around the industrial revolution, man began to seperate himself from nature by using machines to produce for himself, rather than by making everything from what nature would afford him.
What is the difference between nature and the habit of a human or any living thing?
Nature is instinct, your born with it. Habits are learned.What is the difference between nature and the habit of a human or any living thing?
Nature is what comes naturally, habits are learned.coolest myspace
Nature is what comes naturally, habits are learned.
Do you think we could revert back to the nature way of living?
meaning no more roads, houses, technology etc. Assuming everyone wanted to do this would it even be possibleDo you think we could revert back to the nature way of living?
sadly the human population is far too big to be supported by natural means.Do you think we could revert back to the nature way of living?
A while back, a bunch of people decided to leave the comforts of the modern suburban life and their professional yuppie careers and ';revert back to the nature way of living'; Well, they could not produce enough healthy food since there was no refrigeration to keep things from spoiling. They got lice and all kinds of other maladies and had no modern medicine to treat them, some of which got serious, including bacterial and fungal infections. Sanitary conditions got worse and worse, food less and less, and withing two years they were all back living and working in contemporary society. God forbid any of the women had to give childbirth.
100 years ago, the avg age at death was 39. We take for granted all the things we have, and we need to realize that what we gain on one end we lose on another.
i very much doubt it.
humans have become accustomed to sitting on their butts so long.
that they would very much refused to change, even for the sake of planet earth and it's habitats.
just imagine what would happen if you took away most humans houses, TVs. computers and most things technological.
sadly not all humans understand nor care that they are literally destroying this planet.
humans maybe able to create technology that helps and doesn't damage the earth anymore eventually.
well, if by we you mean most of africa, then yes, if by we you mean USA or UK, no. there just aren't enough people willing, and i whole economies and societies would collapse, it would be possible if it was slow and done in small groups, but the best way to be more eco friendly is with Better Technology, e.g wind farms or nuclear, and the destruction of everything we built would take a long time.
but good question
Well roads and cities would take a while to vanish (past your lifetime). And it would take forever to teach people how to cook,build,hunt,fish and survive. People seem to be pretty stupid these days so I don't think it would be possible.
If U lower the population to about 500,000 . Stop and think how many would die if U were in control.
is life witout a double latte frap skim milk living
I think that after WW III, we'll be forced to.
sadly the human population is far too big to be supported by natural means.Do you think we could revert back to the nature way of living?
A while back, a bunch of people decided to leave the comforts of the modern suburban life and their professional yuppie careers and ';revert back to the nature way of living'; Well, they could not produce enough healthy food since there was no refrigeration to keep things from spoiling. They got lice and all kinds of other maladies and had no modern medicine to treat them, some of which got serious, including bacterial and fungal infections. Sanitary conditions got worse and worse, food less and less, and withing two years they were all back living and working in contemporary society. God forbid any of the women had to give childbirth.
100 years ago, the avg age at death was 39. We take for granted all the things we have, and we need to realize that what we gain on one end we lose on another.
i very much doubt it.
humans have become accustomed to sitting on their butts so long.
that they would very much refused to change, even for the sake of planet earth and it's habitats.
just imagine what would happen if you took away most humans houses, TVs. computers and most things technological.
sadly not all humans understand nor care that they are literally destroying this planet.
humans maybe able to create technology that helps and doesn't damage the earth anymore eventually.
well, if by we you mean most of africa, then yes, if by we you mean USA or UK, no. there just aren't enough people willing, and i whole economies and societies would collapse, it would be possible if it was slow and done in small groups, but the best way to be more eco friendly is with Better Technology, e.g wind farms or nuclear, and the destruction of everything we built would take a long time.
but good question
Well roads and cities would take a while to vanish (past your lifetime). And it would take forever to teach people how to cook,build,hunt,fish and survive. People seem to be pretty stupid these days so I don't think it would be possible.
If U lower the population to about 500,000 . Stop and think how many would die if U were in control.
is life witout a double latte frap skim milk living
I think that after WW III, we'll be forced to.
Why do you think humans are so out of touch with nature? Everyother living thing knows its place. We dont..?
What happened to the primate brain when it evolved into a more human version? What is the main flaw regarding human conciousness?Why do you think humans are so out of touch with nature? Everyother living thing knows its place. We dont..?
Because when animals can't fend for themselves, they die. When humans can't fend for themselves they manipulate others to do the work for them. The 'elite' class uses those who are too blind or stupid to know or care to work for their profit.
Animals follow the pack, as do humans (we're animals), the elite knew this when they created a society in which people will instinctively follow what they are lead to believe is 'the pack'. through television, we are led to believe we are fortunate to be making dollars to spend on 'toys' that we don't need. We are the cattle that follow the herd.Why do you think humans are so out of touch with nature? Everyother living thing knows its place. We dont..?
depravity
Who's to say that there is a flaw. Perhaps human conciousness is exactly what it's supposed to be (if that makes any sense).
Development and technology at the expense of Nature.
';knows its place';
thats just another way of saying ';cant use its intelligence to make life more comfortable for itself';
I'm reading an interesting book right now called ';The Power of Intention'; by Dr. Wayne Dyer. He mentions something in there that seems to apply to your question. What we need to be happy is all around us, but we've gotten in the habit of getting in our own way. He says that other living things ';progress in harmony'; but man continues to always be searching for something more, never happy with what is.
Great question. Let's blame it on the media and on our general lack of education. The media sends us hundreds of messages every day to try to tell us what is important, and leaves out what cannot be made into a form of money making instant gratification. The truest meaning of nature is not in there (the sensationalist shows about animal violence just don't communicate the true aspects of nature). While people ';appreciate'; the ocean when they are next to it or the animals at a zoo when they are there, I think they don't know WHY they ';like'; these things. That's where the lack of education is: people don't understand their role in the wild kingdom. There are still many people out there - young and old - that don't think we are animals. It's incredible how we consider ourselves ';evolved';, isn't it? :)
Because when animals can't fend for themselves, they die. When humans can't fend for themselves they manipulate others to do the work for them. The 'elite' class uses those who are too blind or stupid to know or care to work for their profit.
Animals follow the pack, as do humans (we're animals), the elite knew this when they created a society in which people will instinctively follow what they are lead to believe is 'the pack'. through television, we are led to believe we are fortunate to be making dollars to spend on 'toys' that we don't need. We are the cattle that follow the herd.Why do you think humans are so out of touch with nature? Everyother living thing knows its place. We dont..?
depravity
Who's to say that there is a flaw. Perhaps human conciousness is exactly what it's supposed to be (if that makes any sense).
Development and technology at the expense of Nature.
';knows its place';
thats just another way of saying ';cant use its intelligence to make life more comfortable for itself';
I'm reading an interesting book right now called ';The Power of Intention'; by Dr. Wayne Dyer. He mentions something in there that seems to apply to your question. What we need to be happy is all around us, but we've gotten in the habit of getting in our own way. He says that other living things ';progress in harmony'; but man continues to always be searching for something more, never happy with what is.
Great question. Let's blame it on the media and on our general lack of education. The media sends us hundreds of messages every day to try to tell us what is important, and leaves out what cannot be made into a form of money making instant gratification. The truest meaning of nature is not in there (the sensationalist shows about animal violence just don't communicate the true aspects of nature). While people ';appreciate'; the ocean when they are next to it or the animals at a zoo when they are there, I think they don't know WHY they ';like'; these things. That's where the lack of education is: people don't understand their role in the wild kingdom. There are still many people out there - young and old - that don't think we are animals. It's incredible how we consider ourselves ';evolved';, isn't it? :)
Why is the polar nature of a water molecule important to living organisms?
The polarity of water allows two important things to happen (or not happen) in living organisms for survival.
-First, since water is polar, it has an unequal distribution of charge. This means that water molecules are slightly positive and negative. This quality is important because that makes water a good solvent (it can dissolve many things). Other polar compounds and ions can easily be dissolved in water because polar + polar = even distribution of charge, and ions have a charge, so it's attracted to the opposite charge on the water molecule.
The ability of water to dissolve many solutions is essential in organisms. In the bloodstream, for example, sugars and other nutrients are dissolved so that the blood cells can carry it to cells in the body. If sugars weren't dissolved, they couldn't reach cells.
-Second, the polarity of water is important in repelling nonpolar compounds. Nonpolar compounds don't dissolve well in water (like how oil, a nonpolar solution, forms ';beads'; in water). This is important to cell membranes in the body. The shape and function of cell membranes depend on the interaction of polar water with nonpolar membrane molecules.Why is the polar nature of a water molecule important to living organisms?
because without water, chemical reaction can't occur.
so its play a vital role for every single organisms.Why is the polar nature of a water molecule important to living organisms?
It makes it a good solvent for ions, carbohydrates and amino acids, It permits ionic gradients, and numerous ionic cell responses based on potential (voltage) differences.
Yout heart could not beat, your brain could not work, none of your muscles could work without polar moecules of water.
Rex, from Indiana
So that it is a solvent, plus maintains temperature in the body.
If water wasn't polar, ice would sink instead of float. This would kill all life in lakes and oceans, and make it impossible for life on this planet.
It's amazing that a little thing like ice floating could have such an impact on life!
-First, since water is polar, it has an unequal distribution of charge. This means that water molecules are slightly positive and negative. This quality is important because that makes water a good solvent (it can dissolve many things). Other polar compounds and ions can easily be dissolved in water because polar + polar = even distribution of charge, and ions have a charge, so it's attracted to the opposite charge on the water molecule.
The ability of water to dissolve many solutions is essential in organisms. In the bloodstream, for example, sugars and other nutrients are dissolved so that the blood cells can carry it to cells in the body. If sugars weren't dissolved, they couldn't reach cells.
-Second, the polarity of water is important in repelling nonpolar compounds. Nonpolar compounds don't dissolve well in water (like how oil, a nonpolar solution, forms ';beads'; in water). This is important to cell membranes in the body. The shape and function of cell membranes depend on the interaction of polar water with nonpolar membrane molecules.Why is the polar nature of a water molecule important to living organisms?
because without water, chemical reaction can't occur.
so its play a vital role for every single organisms.Why is the polar nature of a water molecule important to living organisms?
It makes it a good solvent for ions, carbohydrates and amino acids, It permits ionic gradients, and numerous ionic cell responses based on potential (voltage) differences.
Yout heart could not beat, your brain could not work, none of your muscles could work without polar moecules of water.
Rex, from Indiana
So that it is a solvent, plus maintains temperature in the body.
If water wasn't polar, ice would sink instead of float. This would kill all life in lakes and oceans, and make it impossible for life on this planet.
It's amazing that a little thing like ice floating could have such an impact on life!
Intersted in Natural living, close to nature,low impact eco living. Any advice on Suitable courses?
Looking for information on Eco building courses/design/build, sustainable,low impact living courses have no experience, organic farming courses. Any suitable advice much appreciated. Thanks, merry xmasIntersted in Natural living, close to nature,low impact eco living. Any advice on Suitable courses?
Do a search on the term permaculture.
Consider another term 'energy neutral housing', and Straw-bale housing.
I live in a passive solar home on a small acreage and grow just part of our own food. But we have somewhat retired from our energy kick of 30 years ago. Now we also burn limbs from our trees to keep warm in a Canadian winter.
The walnuts that provided a lot of our food are now mostly being sold because the price is so high. Not a complete success story.Intersted in Natural living, close to nature,low impact eco living. Any advice on Suitable courses?
You could try the Defra website, it has quite a bit on the environment, you might get ideas for other links there. Also Natural Heritage, countryside alliance...try their websites too. Good luck and Merry Christmas to you too!
Check out the Midwest Renewable Energy Association, and if you are on the East coast, Rob Roy has some cool cordwood classes and there is also a community college in ny that does cob building. CA has loads of cool classes.
For books, I like Rob Roy's ';Mortgage Free'; and about a million others you can find in the Real Goods Catalog. Also Backwoods Solar and the Lehman's Non-Electric Catalogs have books as well as supplies.
For organic farming, talk to your local extension agent. They should be able to get you in touch with some good classes. Check out the PASA conference and NOFA meetings below. This is the time of year most states have their conferences.
Have fun! We have been off grid and ';growing our own'; for several years. It is a labor intensive, but rewarding life.
Ray Mearers survival guide and some ordanance survey maps.
Most of the stuff online can be found by searching for ';homesteading';.
I am going to recommend two great books for you to get to get you started. Both are excellent for what you are looking for and for a few dollars ob eBay or Amazon.com may be the cheapest course that you could find.
Back to Basics by Readers Digest
About this title: A how-to reference on everything from braiding a rug to building a log cabin. Everything about growing your own food to preserving it. You will love this book.
The other book is the FoxFire book. It actually is a series of books, but I found the first one and maybe the second more what you are looking for. If you read these books your blood will be boiling to start natural living. Luck.
nope
Where are you located? Cal Poly Pomona in LA area has a place called the John T Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies (CRS). CRS is a fancy name for a place based on the idea of going beyond sustainability and actually regenerating nature. They have a masters degree available, but if that is too formal, they also have some really cool workshops open to the public in areas like solar power, eco-design, biodiesel etc. A spinoff from CRS' early (ie radical) days is the Regen cooperative in downtown Pomona. I think if you google ';Regen House'; you will find the website. Regen has an annual ';Sustainability Seminar';. This is what I know in southern California.
Do a search on the term permaculture.
Consider another term 'energy neutral housing', and Straw-bale housing.
I live in a passive solar home on a small acreage and grow just part of our own food. But we have somewhat retired from our energy kick of 30 years ago. Now we also burn limbs from our trees to keep warm in a Canadian winter.
The walnuts that provided a lot of our food are now mostly being sold because the price is so high. Not a complete success story.Intersted in Natural living, close to nature,low impact eco living. Any advice on Suitable courses?
You could try the Defra website, it has quite a bit on the environment, you might get ideas for other links there. Also Natural Heritage, countryside alliance...try their websites too. Good luck and Merry Christmas to you too!
Check out the Midwest Renewable Energy Association, and if you are on the East coast, Rob Roy has some cool cordwood classes and there is also a community college in ny that does cob building. CA has loads of cool classes.
For books, I like Rob Roy's ';Mortgage Free'; and about a million others you can find in the Real Goods Catalog. Also Backwoods Solar and the Lehman's Non-Electric Catalogs have books as well as supplies.
For organic farming, talk to your local extension agent. They should be able to get you in touch with some good classes. Check out the PASA conference and NOFA meetings below. This is the time of year most states have their conferences.
Have fun! We have been off grid and ';growing our own'; for several years. It is a labor intensive, but rewarding life.
Ray Mearers survival guide and some ordanance survey maps.
Most of the stuff online can be found by searching for ';homesteading';.
I am going to recommend two great books for you to get to get you started. Both are excellent for what you are looking for and for a few dollars ob eBay or Amazon.com may be the cheapest course that you could find.
Back to Basics by Readers Digest
About this title: A how-to reference on everything from braiding a rug to building a log cabin. Everything about growing your own food to preserving it. You will love this book.
The other book is the FoxFire book. It actually is a series of books, but I found the first one and maybe the second more what you are looking for. If you read these books your blood will be boiling to start natural living. Luck.
nope
Where are you located? Cal Poly Pomona in LA area has a place called the John T Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies (CRS). CRS is a fancy name for a place based on the idea of going beyond sustainability and actually regenerating nature. They have a masters degree available, but if that is too formal, they also have some really cool workshops open to the public in areas like solar power, eco-design, biodiesel etc. A spinoff from CRS' early (ie radical) days is the Regen cooperative in downtown Pomona. I think if you google ';Regen House'; you will find the website. Regen has an annual ';Sustainability Seminar';. This is what I know in southern California.
If I have an American bald eagle living in my back yard can I have my property declared a nature preserve ?
I don't think you're lazy at all! I definitely agree that lawnmowers have the most annoying sound especially when you work 3rd shift and are trying to SLEEP!!! Don't you just HATE those people that love to mow every other day??!! That REALLY P***** me off!!!! Anyway, it sounds like you might could have the property declared. I certainly wouldn't want to disturb the beautiful creature. If I have an American bald eagle living in my back yard can I have my property declared a nature preserve ?
How many people would you let onto your property just to see the American Bald Eagle ? Consider yourself fortunate and just enjoy what is roosting in your back yard. Take pictures and savor the moment. Besides, you would need a different variety of species as well as a permit to declare your spot as a nature preserve and where I come from nobody lives on a nature preserve except maybe for the American Indian and they have there own preserves called reservations. But, then again, I'm known to be wrong and it would be news to me.If I have an American bald eagle living in my back yard can I have my property declared a nature preserve ?
Thats pretty cool to have a bald eagle. I am not sure where your property is located but if cutting the grass is a 'neighbor friendly' thing to do where you are I would go ahead and cut the grass for the good of the neighborhood and to maintain peace. Don't use the Eagle as an excuse to be lazy.
Let me know, I live at grand lake oklahoma and I have a male and female on my property. I think male female, one is bigger than the other.
They taste like chicken and are nice big targets.
NO! you cant now go cut that grass...LOL
How many people would you let onto your property just to see the American Bald Eagle ? Consider yourself fortunate and just enjoy what is roosting in your back yard. Take pictures and savor the moment. Besides, you would need a different variety of species as well as a permit to declare your spot as a nature preserve and where I come from nobody lives on a nature preserve except maybe for the American Indian and they have there own preserves called reservations. But, then again, I'm known to be wrong and it would be news to me.If I have an American bald eagle living in my back yard can I have my property declared a nature preserve ?
Thats pretty cool to have a bald eagle. I am not sure where your property is located but if cutting the grass is a 'neighbor friendly' thing to do where you are I would go ahead and cut the grass for the good of the neighborhood and to maintain peace. Don't use the Eagle as an excuse to be lazy.
Let me know, I live at grand lake oklahoma and I have a male and female on my property. I think male female, one is bigger than the other.
They taste like chicken and are nice big targets.
NO! you cant now go cut that grass...LOL
What are the eight capacities of living organisms that are not observed in inanimate nature?
Please give me EIGHT.Thanks.:DWhat are the eight capacities of living organisms that are not observed in inanimate nature?
There's only 7! But you can remember these 7 through MRS GREN:
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition
Enjoy.coolest myspace
There's only 7! But you can remember these 7 through MRS GREN:
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition
Enjoy.
Can gay people stop living a gay lifestyle and live a life of hetersexual nature?
Once a person admits and acts on being gay can they ever refrain and live life according to so many religious concepts or beliefs? Does the struggle inside ones self ever cease with the temptation and desires or is one merely a freak of nature to be so confused?Can gay people stop living a gay lifestyle and live a life of hetersexual nature?
I suppose if a gay person then fell in love with an opposite sex person and chose to live life with that person they would convert, but it wouldn't be by force so much as just natural. Of course they could always be 'attracted' to people of their own sex, just not act on it like regular heterosexual people are happily married/involved but are attracted to other people without acting on it.Can gay people stop living a gay lifestyle and live a life of hetersexual nature?
gay people are not confused... nor are they a ';freak of nature';...and your sexuality is not a ';lifestyle';... a lifestyle is whether you choose to live in the country or the city...have pets or not... have children or focus on a career... There is no struggle inside myself and God loves me exactly as he created me...
thanks for your concern...
EDIT:
to ';Cabs';... I love it when someone says things like ';research'; when they have none and there is none...nice try....
sure and be miserable the rest of our lives. We cant help who we are attracted too..we cant help who we love..we cant change who we are just to make the homophobes happy.
I just asked this question when responding to someone else's question!!
Wouldn't be hard to impossible? I mean it's so much easier for a heterosexual to become bi or even homosexual but it's so much harder for a homosexual to become bi and even harder to damn near impossible to become heterosexual.
I don't think anyone who is confused is a freak of nature. It's okay to be confused. I think being gay isn't a choice, but if a person wants to follow the concepts and beliefs of a particular religion then I am sure that they could try to conform thier sexuality to those beliefs, but I imagine that it would be a hard struggle and a lonely way to live life.
Research has shown that the answer is yes, some/many can. Research has also shown that those who do turn to a heterosexual nature are usually happier.
thats a really confusing question, but i think once a person claims they are gay then why would they want to go back? in my way of thought, once you go gay you dont want the other, thats what i think
Lots of homosexuals live a heterosexual lifestyle. You just don't know that they're doing so because they're so good at it.
One may go into hiding, but one always comes out of hiding sooner or later...
I dont get it how does our life differ from your str8 life, we both have same problems, well only you str8 people are privileged!
No.
If you feel disgusted with yourself i suggest you
see a counselor that is
NOT
associated with your church. Someone who doesn't have an interest in whether you are gay or not.
Not to disrespect your church, but many of them would have you choose their moral code over your happiness.
my belief
is God wants
you to be HAPPY
whether you are
gay
or not.
yup. over 16,000 have ... more will.
of course...... god created adam and eve......... not adam and steve..... go to a church and talk to a pastor
I suppose if a gay person then fell in love with an opposite sex person and chose to live life with that person they would convert, but it wouldn't be by force so much as just natural. Of course they could always be 'attracted' to people of their own sex, just not act on it like regular heterosexual people are happily married/involved but are attracted to other people without acting on it.Can gay people stop living a gay lifestyle and live a life of hetersexual nature?
gay people are not confused... nor are they a ';freak of nature';...and your sexuality is not a ';lifestyle';... a lifestyle is whether you choose to live in the country or the city...have pets or not... have children or focus on a career... There is no struggle inside myself and God loves me exactly as he created me...
thanks for your concern...
EDIT:
to ';Cabs';... I love it when someone says things like ';research'; when they have none and there is none...nice try....
sure and be miserable the rest of our lives. We cant help who we are attracted too..we cant help who we love..we cant change who we are just to make the homophobes happy.
I just asked this question when responding to someone else's question!!
Wouldn't be hard to impossible? I mean it's so much easier for a heterosexual to become bi or even homosexual but it's so much harder for a homosexual to become bi and even harder to damn near impossible to become heterosexual.
I don't think anyone who is confused is a freak of nature. It's okay to be confused. I think being gay isn't a choice, but if a person wants to follow the concepts and beliefs of a particular religion then I am sure that they could try to conform thier sexuality to those beliefs, but I imagine that it would be a hard struggle and a lonely way to live life.
Research has shown that the answer is yes, some/many can. Research has also shown that those who do turn to a heterosexual nature are usually happier.
thats a really confusing question, but i think once a person claims they are gay then why would they want to go back? in my way of thought, once you go gay you dont want the other, thats what i think
Lots of homosexuals live a heterosexual lifestyle. You just don't know that they're doing so because they're so good at it.
One may go into hiding, but one always comes out of hiding sooner or later...
I dont get it how does our life differ from your str8 life, we both have same problems, well only you str8 people are privileged!
No.
If you feel disgusted with yourself i suggest you
see a counselor that is
NOT
associated with your church. Someone who doesn't have an interest in whether you are gay or not.
Not to disrespect your church, but many of them would have you choose their moral code over your happiness.
my belief
is God wants
you to be HAPPY
whether you are
gay
or not.
yup. over 16,000 have ... more will.
of course...... god created adam and eve......... not adam and steve..... go to a church and talk to a pastor
How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Living things are ';energy engines'; they use energy to keep themselves organized into a living thing. When they die. that process stops and they rot. Consider yourself, some of the energy in the food you eat is lost as heat and poop. You give off carbon dioxide and water like any other internial combustion engine.
Ultimatly, the sun goes out, everything dies and rots.
No violation of Thermo there.
The 2nd Law argument is often used by Creationists to support their views. It doesn't. Fact is the laws of science CANNOT be used to prove or disprove the existance of God.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Obviously, living things do not violate the 2LoT. After all, the people who first described it were well aware of the existence of living things. Had they determined that living things did not increase global entropy, they would not have written it down in the first place.
The first thermodynamicists were also well aware of the self-organizing principles of hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals, ocean currents, and tornadoes.
If any of these things seem to you to violate 2LoT, then it is your understanding of 2LoT that is flawed, not the law itself.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Actually, living things are a perfect example of the second law.
We consume energy from foods to convert into energy for survival, but there is always some energy lost in this process, which immediately falls in line with the more classic interpretation of the second law; that you will essentially never get out quite as much as you put in.
But even the more modern interpretations serve brilliantly as human explanation. For example, we entropy biologically, known as aging. From basic friction (wear and tear, arthritis) to genetic decay, we are in a constant state of entropy, we consume more and more resources, producing more and more waste for less gain, both biologically and technologically.
Our energy is constantly in a state of loss, and when looked at from afar the entire phenomenon of life could easily be alluded to a very simple chemical reaction, one of the millions that are taking place throughout the universe.
Just as there are fusions within stars, slowly burning out at an increasingly accelerated rate, so too is there a strange, self-replicating chemical reaction that burns up more fuel than it produces in quantifiable energy output, and this phenomenon we refer to as life. And just like any other scientific process, we exist with an increasingly degenerating level of productivity.
Now while it is true that we are increasing in terms of population, don't be fooled into thinking that means we are not subject to entropy. It should not disguise the fact that we are still consuming more energy than we create, and that factor is only INCREASING the greater our population becomes, as we eat into our natural resources and balance out that loss very little. Don't mistake the raw numbers of life forms with entropy.
Having said that, we do seem to form a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, all life-forms balance one another out, replenishing the ';lost'; energy. But when viewing it from that angle, it becomes necessary not to generalize all life forms under the same category. You see, each individual life form is still consuming more energy than they produce, it's just that another life form fills in the gaps, creating a perpetual cycle throughout nature.
This could be compared to a stellar nursery creating new stars to replace the ones that fizzle out in the universe, while there may be a replenishment out there, each individual process was still putting out less energy than it consumed, each individual reaction, process or biological life form still exists in a state of increasing entropy.
I hope you find this answer acceptable. :)
The Founder
This is a really excellent question that is the subject of huge amounts of science, either directly or indirectly.
If you exclude spiritual or religious explanations which, though possible, are not subject to proof or even plausibility, then you need to look to ';self-organizing principles';.
There's a lot of good research here.
For the elementary principles of how simple instructions of populations can for(m) higher levels of organization, check out, ';A new kind of Science'; by Stephan Wolfram. Free access, with a login at: http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/鈥?/a>
Also try the original writings of Gregory Bateson. Try ';Steps to an ecology of Mind'; and ';Mind and Nature';
Lastly, try an internet search on the term ';Emergence'; this is an emerging (sorry for the pun!) term for the phenomena of simple systems, simply creating greater complexity.
Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
See the section living systems, but you should probably catch it all for some background.
Pretty extensive work going on and a field that is in it's infancy.
Hope this helps.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system; we receive low entropy light from the sun and radiate high entropy heat into space. What's left behind is disentropy.
Actually, there are no truly closed systems; they're just hypothetical.
The two words in the second law that explains the nature of living things are: spontaneously and tend. For a better discusion try the following website:
www.secondlaw.com/two
Ultimatly, the sun goes out, everything dies and rots.
No violation of Thermo there.
The 2nd Law argument is often used by Creationists to support their views. It doesn't. Fact is the laws of science CANNOT be used to prove or disprove the existance of God.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Obviously, living things do not violate the 2LoT. After all, the people who first described it were well aware of the existence of living things. Had they determined that living things did not increase global entropy, they would not have written it down in the first place.
The first thermodynamicists were also well aware of the self-organizing principles of hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals, ocean currents, and tornadoes.
If any of these things seem to you to violate 2LoT, then it is your understanding of 2LoT that is flawed, not the law itself.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Actually, living things are a perfect example of the second law.
We consume energy from foods to convert into energy for survival, but there is always some energy lost in this process, which immediately falls in line with the more classic interpretation of the second law; that you will essentially never get out quite as much as you put in.
But even the more modern interpretations serve brilliantly as human explanation. For example, we entropy biologically, known as aging. From basic friction (wear and tear, arthritis) to genetic decay, we are in a constant state of entropy, we consume more and more resources, producing more and more waste for less gain, both biologically and technologically.
Our energy is constantly in a state of loss, and when looked at from afar the entire phenomenon of life could easily be alluded to a very simple chemical reaction, one of the millions that are taking place throughout the universe.
Just as there are fusions within stars, slowly burning out at an increasingly accelerated rate, so too is there a strange, self-replicating chemical reaction that burns up more fuel than it produces in quantifiable energy output, and this phenomenon we refer to as life. And just like any other scientific process, we exist with an increasingly degenerating level of productivity.
Now while it is true that we are increasing in terms of population, don't be fooled into thinking that means we are not subject to entropy. It should not disguise the fact that we are still consuming more energy than we create, and that factor is only INCREASING the greater our population becomes, as we eat into our natural resources and balance out that loss very little. Don't mistake the raw numbers of life forms with entropy.
Having said that, we do seem to form a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, all life-forms balance one another out, replenishing the ';lost'; energy. But when viewing it from that angle, it becomes necessary not to generalize all life forms under the same category. You see, each individual life form is still consuming more energy than they produce, it's just that another life form fills in the gaps, creating a perpetual cycle throughout nature.
This could be compared to a stellar nursery creating new stars to replace the ones that fizzle out in the universe, while there may be a replenishment out there, each individual process was still putting out less energy than it consumed, each individual reaction, process or biological life form still exists in a state of increasing entropy.
I hope you find this answer acceptable. :)
The Founder
This is a really excellent question that is the subject of huge amounts of science, either directly or indirectly.
If you exclude spiritual or religious explanations which, though possible, are not subject to proof or even plausibility, then you need to look to ';self-organizing principles';.
There's a lot of good research here.
For the elementary principles of how simple instructions of populations can for(m) higher levels of organization, check out, ';A new kind of Science'; by Stephan Wolfram. Free access, with a login at: http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/鈥?/a>
Also try the original writings of Gregory Bateson. Try ';Steps to an ecology of Mind'; and ';Mind and Nature';
Lastly, try an internet search on the term ';Emergence'; this is an emerging (sorry for the pun!) term for the phenomena of simple systems, simply creating greater complexity.
Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
See the section living systems, but you should probably catch it all for some background.
Pretty extensive work going on and a field that is in it's infancy.
Hope this helps.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system; we receive low entropy light from the sun and radiate high entropy heat into space. What's left behind is disentropy.
Actually, there are no truly closed systems; they're just hypothetical.
The two words in the second law that explains the nature of living things are: spontaneously and tend. For a better discusion try the following website:
www.secondlaw.com/two
Living things existing on the earth, not in the moon? How long we can live in the moon without nature?
Humans? not at all for many many reasons (unless we take everything there) - however, bacteria is perhaps possible... Astronauts on Apollo 12 retrieved the Surveyor 3 spacecraft that had been sitting on the Moon for 31 months. It had not been sterilized prior to launch and when returned to Earth for examination, scientists found a small amount of 'Streptococcus mitis'. It is possible it was contaminated here once it was returned - and it is possible it survived for that long on the Moon. I've seen reports both ways...Living things existing on the earth, not in the moon? How long we can live in the moon without nature?
By taking all the things we need with us. Air, Water, Food, and so on.Living things existing on the earth, not in the moon? How long we can live in the moon without nature?
Who says that we will even live on the moon it may be Mars.
If we should happen to live on the moon one day we will build bio domes with artificial light so plants will be-able to grow on the moon,and also animals will be there as well.
By taking all the things we need with us. Air, Water, Food, and so on.Living things existing on the earth, not in the moon? How long we can live in the moon without nature?
Who says that we will even live on the moon it may be Mars.
If we should happen to live on the moon one day we will build bio domes with artificial light so plants will be-able to grow on the moon,and also animals will be there as well.
Why did/do Africans living in the heart of nature's drugstore, choose ineffective things like voodoo for cures?
Wouldn't it be smarter to explore the more effective solutions right in their own backyard? If the answer is, ';well they don't have labs to test in';, then why don't they? Before responding, please keep asking ';Why don't they'; until you discover a SENSIBLE reason why humans would allow themselves to be in such a pathetic situation.Why did/do Africans living in the heart of nature's drugstore, choose ineffective things like voodoo for cures?
because they don't realise that they are ';pathetic';,
most of the cultures where they keep practicing voodoo as a form of cure dont have the knowledge, money and resources to have a lab. they dont have the internet, xbox, mcdonalds, etc. they dont know about the rest of the world, or about hollywood stars, or about modern medicine, they work with what they do have and what they know, and they've been trying voodoo as a cure for a long long time, so they are going to continue to use it until they are clued into something else. and unforunately not many people can dump 12 billion dollars into these african countries to develop these labs and teach them. so until then they will try what they can. why dont you be sensible and stop calling other people pathetic. trying to shame and poking fun at cultures who are ignorant, not because they want to be but because the resources and information isnt readily available to them, is pathetic and a waste of time.Why did/do Africans living in the heart of nature's drugstore, choose ineffective things like voodoo for cures?
Voodoo practitioners used herbs and whatnot in their cures and I believe a lot of their remedies worked. If you knew anything about voodoo you'd know that they were naturalists in most ways like the Native American shamans and medicine men. And voodoo can be effective, especially when it comes to curses, I'm not too sure about cures though.
I don't know anything about voodoo, but I understand anyone staying away from most commonly accepted American medical treatments and drugs. Natural remedies are seen as little better than voodoo by many people, but they are far better and safer for you.
most africans do not rely on voodoo in these modern times. the ones that do are very superstitious.
I dont think Africans are the only ones engaging with voodoo
Cuz Voodooism isn't just some mythical thing to used to cure people. It's a real religion...
however lame it is.
because they don't realise that they are ';pathetic';,
most of the cultures where they keep practicing voodoo as a form of cure dont have the knowledge, money and resources to have a lab. they dont have the internet, xbox, mcdonalds, etc. they dont know about the rest of the world, or about hollywood stars, or about modern medicine, they work with what they do have and what they know, and they've been trying voodoo as a cure for a long long time, so they are going to continue to use it until they are clued into something else. and unforunately not many people can dump 12 billion dollars into these african countries to develop these labs and teach them. so until then they will try what they can. why dont you be sensible and stop calling other people pathetic. trying to shame and poking fun at cultures who are ignorant, not because they want to be but because the resources and information isnt readily available to them, is pathetic and a waste of time.Why did/do Africans living in the heart of nature's drugstore, choose ineffective things like voodoo for cures?
Voodoo practitioners used herbs and whatnot in their cures and I believe a lot of their remedies worked. If you knew anything about voodoo you'd know that they were naturalists in most ways like the Native American shamans and medicine men. And voodoo can be effective, especially when it comes to curses, I'm not too sure about cures though.
I don't know anything about voodoo, but I understand anyone staying away from most commonly accepted American medical treatments and drugs. Natural remedies are seen as little better than voodoo by many people, but they are far better and safer for you.
most africans do not rely on voodoo in these modern times. the ones that do are very superstitious.
I dont think Africans are the only ones engaging with voodoo
Cuz Voodooism isn't just some mythical thing to used to cure people. It's a real religion...
however lame it is.
Do you love money or the nature who provide the sources of life and living?
today every thing is to get money only ,even people studying just to earn money to maintain their standerd of living to buy the facilities in the life. but natur is no more natural who is the sources of every thing. now the question is can money can be replace with nature? your good answers please. what a human can do to save the source of lives?thanks.Do you love money or the nature who provide the sources of life and living?
It is like a simple question, the understanding is that the Money changes its colour when it crosses boundaries, but nature stands same every where. Nature is like Cow sound, cat sound....it never changes any country you visit....but currencies....$..Rs..AED...Yen..Sterling鈥?br>
Nature creates every things......
Money can buy things...can not make any thing.
Nature Gives.....Money buys.....
some comparisions of Nature Vs Money.....
You can buy Bed and not sleep...
you can buy Food and not hunger....
you can buy sex and not love.....
So, nature is in us...Money what we search out....Do you love money or the nature who provide the sources of life and living?
Money is very good, harmless %26amp; extremely useful as long as everybody around chooses it as a representative of somebody's productive hard work, to be used to exchange values (of products, goods %26amp; services).
But the problem arises becauses most people now 'seek' to convert is as a 'replacement' to those sources of life %26amp; living, which has to be otherwise sought by honest efforts like every living being . Other living beings obey this law, and are therefore provided food by nature 'free' even now! Only humans have to earn it! Honest recognition of money in its true sense would have fetched so much value and recognition for money that everything else would have been much much cheaper, even affording liberal charity of other things, bringing mankind as a whole, very close to that natural state of free availability of most basic needs!
Seems like you think money is evil, and such belief is wrong. Money is only a tool. You produce, get paid, then you use the money to get the result of the work of others. Money is morally neutral. Of course, some people do bad things to get money.
The way I see it, money stands for human effort. In life, usage can be minimized, but never completely eliminated. I cannot think of a substitute. Thus, I would say that money is a factor in many decisions, but it need not be the only one, or even the main one. This is not a bad thing.
Money is human invention; nature isn't, Money associate with greed, development, destroying forests and different creature habitat to build skyscrapers, and money is obsolete its just a matter of time, our species is selfish we don't think about the important balance of nature nor the impact we are creating on generations to come. I say its about time to stop destroying nature, there should be compulsory module about nature preservation in all school to teach the future generations to do what we fail to do.
Money is seen as a status symbol. Do most people not look down on hobos and the homeless? Do most people not look up to CEO's and world political leaders (who are filthy stinkin' rich no matter what they tell us)? I agree with you, and think that money shouldn't matter as much as it does, but I also think that as long as there is only but one person in the world with a single ounce of greed in his body, the world will continue to rely on money (especially if that one person happens to be Arabic and has control of a large oil deposit).
I love to be going through all the sickness in life and traumas for paying for the SIGHT of the dirt that carried the gold before the Egyptian temples..!
My dear, Nowadays,money is required to enjoy nature.Read my article ';Buying the Past in Pieces';.It can be found at http://www.rajastories.blogspot.com
It is like a simple question, the understanding is that the Money changes its colour when it crosses boundaries, but nature stands same every where. Nature is like Cow sound, cat sound....it never changes any country you visit....but currencies....$..Rs..AED...Yen..Sterling鈥?br>
Nature creates every things......
Money can buy things...can not make any thing.
Nature Gives.....Money buys.....
some comparisions of Nature Vs Money.....
You can buy Bed and not sleep...
you can buy Food and not hunger....
you can buy sex and not love.....
So, nature is in us...Money what we search out....Do you love money or the nature who provide the sources of life and living?
Money is very good, harmless %26amp; extremely useful as long as everybody around chooses it as a representative of somebody's productive hard work, to be used to exchange values (of products, goods %26amp; services).
But the problem arises becauses most people now 'seek' to convert is as a 'replacement' to those sources of life %26amp; living, which has to be otherwise sought by honest efforts like every living being . Other living beings obey this law, and are therefore provided food by nature 'free' even now! Only humans have to earn it! Honest recognition of money in its true sense would have fetched so much value and recognition for money that everything else would have been much much cheaper, even affording liberal charity of other things, bringing mankind as a whole, very close to that natural state of free availability of most basic needs!
Seems like you think money is evil, and such belief is wrong. Money is only a tool. You produce, get paid, then you use the money to get the result of the work of others. Money is morally neutral. Of course, some people do bad things to get money.
The way I see it, money stands for human effort. In life, usage can be minimized, but never completely eliminated. I cannot think of a substitute. Thus, I would say that money is a factor in many decisions, but it need not be the only one, or even the main one. This is not a bad thing.
Money is human invention; nature isn't, Money associate with greed, development, destroying forests and different creature habitat to build skyscrapers, and money is obsolete its just a matter of time, our species is selfish we don't think about the important balance of nature nor the impact we are creating on generations to come. I say its about time to stop destroying nature, there should be compulsory module about nature preservation in all school to teach the future generations to do what we fail to do.
Money is seen as a status symbol. Do most people not look down on hobos and the homeless? Do most people not look up to CEO's and world political leaders (who are filthy stinkin' rich no matter what they tell us)? I agree with you, and think that money shouldn't matter as much as it does, but I also think that as long as there is only but one person in the world with a single ounce of greed in his body, the world will continue to rely on money (especially if that one person happens to be Arabic and has control of a large oil deposit).
I love to be going through all the sickness in life and traumas for paying for the SIGHT of the dirt that carried the gold before the Egyptian temples..!
My dear, Nowadays,money is required to enjoy nature.Read my article ';Buying the Past in Pieces';.It can be found at http://www.rajastories.blogspot.com
Does anyone know the name of the artist who designed the 'Living Sculpture' in Rye Harbour Nature Reserve?
We went there on Friday and had a great time. It is a wonderful place for bird watching, we saw many different sea birds, wading birds and others, as well as seeing the sea, and there is a nice beach there - I can recommend it!
Before you get to the beach there is this amazing 'Living Sculpture' with different objects collected from the beach and the area. There is a metal frame and these different objects have been hung there attached by string. I think different people have contributed to it.
What would you like to contiribute to this sculpture and can you think of a good name for it?
I would be really grateful if anyone knows where I can find out anything about it.
Thanks.Does anyone know the name of the artist who designed the 'Living Sculpture' in Rye Harbour Nature Reserve?
Could it have been Paul Harrington?
According to page 16 of the following pdf you could have joined Paul Harrington at a drop-in sculpture event on the beach at low tide. Paul used sand and other natural beach materials to form sculptures of sea creatures.
http://www.wildrye.info/files/weekend.pd鈥?/a>Does anyone know the name of the artist who designed the 'Living Sculpture' in Rye Harbour Nature Reserve?
this was a sculpture by the 'people' and so was a' Work in Progress' which I think makes it very interesting. Report Abuse
nopecoolest myspace
Before you get to the beach there is this amazing 'Living Sculpture' with different objects collected from the beach and the area. There is a metal frame and these different objects have been hung there attached by string. I think different people have contributed to it.
What would you like to contiribute to this sculpture and can you think of a good name for it?
I would be really grateful if anyone knows where I can find out anything about it.
Thanks.Does anyone know the name of the artist who designed the 'Living Sculpture' in Rye Harbour Nature Reserve?
Could it have been Paul Harrington?
According to page 16 of the following pdf you could have joined Paul Harrington at a drop-in sculpture event on the beach at low tide. Paul used sand and other natural beach materials to form sculptures of sea creatures.
http://www.wildrye.info/files/weekend.pd鈥?/a>Does anyone know the name of the artist who designed the 'Living Sculpture' in Rye Harbour Nature Reserve?
this was a sculpture by the 'people' and so was a' Work in Progress' which I think makes it very interesting. Report Abuse
nope
Why does mother nature fight back since it is not a living thing and have no feelings?
I heard a saying called ';don't mess with nature or else she'll fight back with brutal fury.';
If humans pollute the environment and damage the ecosystem, nature fights back and will win. Or fighting back a hurricane or tsunami. For example, there is acid rain or weather will change harshly for us.Why does mother nature fight back since it is not a living thing and have no feelings?
';Nature'; is (almost) certainly NOT an Intelligent, purposeful being. Some older philosophies personified nature, ie ';Gia';, Western theology sees nature as the created product of a personal god.
Science, since the 1400's, sees nature as the sum of what exist and acts in a very complex way based on a few simple rules or ';Laws of Nature';
';Nature fights back'; is a way of saying that actions have consequences. Example: burn more carbon fuel, raise the CO2 levels and the global temperature rises. We humans might not like it but ';Nature'; does not care.
';Chaos Theory' says very small changes can have large and unpredictable results.
If humans pollute the environment and damage the ecosystem, nature fights back and will win. Or fighting back a hurricane or tsunami. For example, there is acid rain or weather will change harshly for us.Why does mother nature fight back since it is not a living thing and have no feelings?
';Nature'; is (almost) certainly NOT an Intelligent, purposeful being. Some older philosophies personified nature, ie ';Gia';, Western theology sees nature as the created product of a personal god.
Science, since the 1400's, sees nature as the sum of what exist and acts in a very complex way based on a few simple rules or ';Laws of Nature';
';Nature fights back'; is a way of saying that actions have consequences. Example: burn more carbon fuel, raise the CO2 levels and the global temperature rises. We humans might not like it but ';Nature'; does not care.
';Chaos Theory' says very small changes can have large and unpredictable results.
What might be some advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?
what might be some advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?What might be some advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?
advantages: No rules, you can do whatever you want to do. You don't have to pay taxes. No money wasted on random things that they want to ';Experiment'; with.
Disadvantages: When there are no rules then your town ( or where ever you live) will soon go wild and no one can stop it. Also who will help set up transportation and control all the water and electricity stuff. Who would control the court if there was no rules even the wrong could be right.
Personally I believe l that having governments is better even though they rip us off.What might be some advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?
read Hobbes's or Locke's views on the state of nature. hint. disadvantage- no protection of property, and gives rise to every man vs. every man
Could you be more specific about what you mean by the 'state of nature?'
advantages: No rules, you can do whatever you want to do. You don't have to pay taxes. No money wasted on random things that they want to ';Experiment'; with.
Disadvantages: When there are no rules then your town ( or where ever you live) will soon go wild and no one can stop it. Also who will help set up transportation and control all the water and electricity stuff. Who would control the court if there was no rules even the wrong could be right.
Personally I believe l that having governments is better even though they rip us off.What might be some advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?
read Hobbes's or Locke's views on the state of nature. hint. disadvantage- no protection of property, and gives rise to every man vs. every man
Could you be more specific about what you mean by the 'state of nature?'
How can we stop any individual or monitor their bahavior the abuse of any nature or living things?
Shades of 1984! You can do it by assigning everyone a big brother to monitor their behavior either personally or electronically. You can do it by setting up a network of spies and informants. You can do it by having an instantaneous death sentence for everyone found abusing.
Who'd want to live in such a world.
The truth is, you can never do it because you are ignoring or trying to abolish human nature.
By the way, who watches the watchers?How can we stop any individual or monitor their bahavior the abuse of any nature or living things?
I'm curious as to why you would want to? If you fear the people of the world then why not just stay away. No one likes to be in a cage and to me being monitored all the time you would be in a cage whether the physical boundries are there or not...
Who'd want to live in such a world.
The truth is, you can never do it because you are ignoring or trying to abolish human nature.
By the way, who watches the watchers?How can we stop any individual or monitor their bahavior the abuse of any nature or living things?
I'm curious as to why you would want to? If you fear the people of the world then why not just stay away. No one likes to be in a cage and to me being monitored all the time you would be in a cage whether the physical boundries are there or not...
Best ways to keep kids in touch with nature while living in the city?
Central Park has lots of fun places, like the Boathouse or Beldevere Castle or the zoo, there's an awesome zoo in the Bronx somewhere, you can always take the train ';upstate'; (anywhere you can reach on the NYC-based railroads is really downstate, though) or out to Long Island for a day trip, etc.Best ways to keep kids in touch with nature while living in the city?
Lots of visits to the park, you can also try growing some plants and little veggie gardens in the house. This will also teach ids 'responsibility' of looking after something. I also have lots of indoor pamls throughout the house, you get buy massive ones from bunnings for $60, but average size for about $20 :)Best ways to keep kids in touch with nature while living in the city?
Take them to parks, or watershed.
Look at leaves changing colors,
Explain how flowers grow,
Plant flowers,
Go on a leaf hunt.
Press Flowers.
Are you trying to get on the front page?
I live in the outskirts of the city, and I ran into the same problem with my daughter when she was little. I would pack my car up and go to a park in the country and take nature hikes with her. I would also go on walks around our neighborhood, pick up leaves and flowers and tell her what they were. I also took her to the local farm show exhibit. She still loves it and she learned so much about farm animals that way. At the library we have a local parent magazine that give you lots of ideas of free or cheap stuff to do with your kids and lots of it would be outdoors.
the best thing you can do is take them out.
anywhere out of the four walls of a house and away from technology is getting them in touch with nature.
anything simple from a family walk and just stopping and looking at everything around them to a planned picnic to the park.
go on, take them away from all civilized communication and go all natural
Lots of visits to the park, you can also try growing some plants and little veggie gardens in the house. This will also teach ids 'responsibility' of looking after something. I also have lots of indoor pamls throughout the house, you get buy massive ones from bunnings for $60, but average size for about $20 :)Best ways to keep kids in touch with nature while living in the city?
Take them to parks, or watershed.
Look at leaves changing colors,
Explain how flowers grow,
Plant flowers,
Go on a leaf hunt.
Press Flowers.
Are you trying to get on the front page?
I live in the outskirts of the city, and I ran into the same problem with my daughter when she was little. I would pack my car up and go to a park in the country and take nature hikes with her. I would also go on walks around our neighborhood, pick up leaves and flowers and tell her what they were. I also took her to the local farm show exhibit. She still loves it and she learned so much about farm animals that way. At the library we have a local parent magazine that give you lots of ideas of free or cheap stuff to do with your kids and lots of it would be outdoors.
the best thing you can do is take them out.
anywhere out of the four walls of a house and away from technology is getting them in touch with nature.
anything simple from a family walk and just stopping and looking at everything around them to a planned picnic to the park.
go on, take them away from all civilized communication and go all natural
WHERE CAN I FIND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE IN INTERNET ABOUT LIVING IN NATURE WITHOUT HURTING THE NATURE?
There is a great group on the internet that is devoted to living totally self sufficient with nature and everything natural. They have projects to make solar ovens, composting all your waste, making things from scratch, storing goods, planting totally organic gardens, and tons of other stuff too many to mention.It is not just a gardening site. They discuss home remedies and living off the land in a safe way too.
Just go here and check it out:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organichom鈥?/a>WHERE CAN I FIND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE IN INTERNET ABOUT LIVING IN NATURE WITHOUT HURTING THE NATURE?
I don't know?
Just go here and check it out:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organichom鈥?/a>WHERE CAN I FIND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE IN INTERNET ABOUT LIVING IN NATURE WITHOUT HURTING THE NATURE?
I don't know?
Can straight people stop living a straight lifestyle and live a life of homosexual nature?
Once a person admits and acts on being straight can they ever refrain ? Does the struggle inside ones self ever cease with the temptation and desires or is one merely a freak of nature to be so confused?Can straight people stop living a straight lifestyle and live a life of homosexual nature?
Yes, at the very moment we all decide that there is not difference based on sexual orientation as we all live similar lives and do exactly the same in bed.
The difference only comes from misconceptions, prejudices and interested bigotry.
BwCan straight people stop living a straight lifestyle and live a life of homosexual nature?
Most straight people don't ';struggle'; with their heterosexuality. This is because straight people are the majority so they don't worry about not fitting in the way gay people do.
I know of some straight people who tried being gay because they were curious, but it didn't work out.
It's a CHOICE to be straight.
Damn breeders.
Thanks for asking this
good one Jake..nice way to put it the other way around.
People think we are freaks because of who we love but they never try to put them selves in our shoes.
That is a very good question!! I always wonder why heterosexual people can easily turn Bi or homosexual but it's much harder for homosexual people to turn Bi or heterosexual.
Yes! I believe they can. I say that based on my experience. I am gay and open and proud of it. I love boys and I am a flirt. I keep and open mind and I am very Versatile!! So I flirt with boys but I like and prefer the straight kind better because they are so much worth it after the fact. I flirt with them and then they get curious and scared. Some will try it and some won't but deep down inside will always be curious.
I have had sex with straight boys before who only had sex with me or who later became bi. So yes...I do believe it's possible.
I think it's called prison life!
I could not go from straight to gay.......I have no problem with gays.......it's just not for me
LOL. Jake, you are one of a kind!!! :@)
No.
Excellent question......another would be are they doomed to spend eternity in hell for overpopulating the world and thus raping it's resources for future generations?
Repent straights and embrace the eco-sensitive GLBT life......coolest myspace
Yes, at the very moment we all decide that there is not difference based on sexual orientation as we all live similar lives and do exactly the same in bed.
The difference only comes from misconceptions, prejudices and interested bigotry.
BwCan straight people stop living a straight lifestyle and live a life of homosexual nature?
Most straight people don't ';struggle'; with their heterosexuality. This is because straight people are the majority so they don't worry about not fitting in the way gay people do.
I know of some straight people who tried being gay because they were curious, but it didn't work out.
It's a CHOICE to be straight.
Damn breeders.
Thanks for asking this
good one Jake..nice way to put it the other way around.
People think we are freaks because of who we love but they never try to put them selves in our shoes.
That is a very good question!! I always wonder why heterosexual people can easily turn Bi or homosexual but it's much harder for homosexual people to turn Bi or heterosexual.
Yes! I believe they can. I say that based on my experience. I am gay and open and proud of it. I love boys and I am a flirt. I keep and open mind and I am very Versatile!! So I flirt with boys but I like and prefer the straight kind better because they are so much worth it after the fact. I flirt with them and then they get curious and scared. Some will try it and some won't but deep down inside will always be curious.
I have had sex with straight boys before who only had sex with me or who later became bi. So yes...I do believe it's possible.
I think it's called prison life!
I could not go from straight to gay.......I have no problem with gays.......it's just not for me
LOL. Jake, you are one of a kind!!! :@)
No.
Excellent question......another would be are they doomed to spend eternity in hell for overpopulating the world and thus raping it's resources for future generations?
Repent straights and embrace the eco-sensitive GLBT life......
Has any non-living system been found in nature that can replicate itself?
For biological evolution to have begun, there had to be some system of molecules that could replicate itself. Has a non-living system of this kind ever been observed in nature? Have we been able to build one ourselves? I know there is a lot of work going on in molecular engineering.Has any non-living system been found in nature that can replicate itself?
Viruses. Virii. Whatever. Of course, there's some argument whether a virus is a living thing or not, and I've heard of other things but I don't remember what they are, so viruses is the closest answer I have at the moment.Has any non-living system been found in nature that can replicate itself?
Well im not too sure about Non-living but we are starting the idea of personal replicators though they are still just in theory. Carbon Nanotubes grow on their own so im not sure if u consider them replicating. The latter being a reality is actually pretty amazing though nano technology or the idea of replicators have been part of human imagination so far, but who knows our technology grows at leaps and bounds!
TMY is right!
But the thing is is that DNA itself isn't ';living'; it replicates as well as RNA and mRNA. and you question is phrased a little awkwardly because you have non-living system and nature in the same phrase
I'm not sure about viruses. They seem to be complex molecules that reproduce. However, if life is defined , in part, by the ability to reproduce, then ...
Weather fits your ';system'; categorization at least, and it certainly seems to feed and expand and ';replicate,'; as it were.
The crystalline structures of any crystal are non-living and they replicate very well.
viruses aren't living according to my biology teacher because they cant live by themselves. they need a host like humans or something living to reproduce.
Fire.
Sulfuric acid catalyzes the formation of sulfuric acid.
Crystals grow and will 'seed'.
Viruses. Virii. Whatever. Of course, there's some argument whether a virus is a living thing or not, and I've heard of other things but I don't remember what they are, so viruses is the closest answer I have at the moment.Has any non-living system been found in nature that can replicate itself?
Well im not too sure about Non-living but we are starting the idea of personal replicators though they are still just in theory. Carbon Nanotubes grow on their own so im not sure if u consider them replicating. The latter being a reality is actually pretty amazing though nano technology or the idea of replicators have been part of human imagination so far, but who knows our technology grows at leaps and bounds!
TMY is right!
But the thing is is that DNA itself isn't ';living'; it replicates as well as RNA and mRNA. and you question is phrased a little awkwardly because you have non-living system and nature in the same phrase
I'm not sure about viruses. They seem to be complex molecules that reproduce. However, if life is defined , in part, by the ability to reproduce, then ...
Weather fits your ';system'; categorization at least, and it certainly seems to feed and expand and ';replicate,'; as it were.
The crystalline structures of any crystal are non-living and they replicate very well.
viruses aren't living according to my biology teacher because they cant live by themselves. they need a host like humans or something living to reproduce.
Fire.
Sulfuric acid catalyzes the formation of sulfuric acid.
Crystals grow and will 'seed'.
Please introduce novels about the people who have attained calm,creativity, and morality by living in nature.
I want to dedicate my life to the protection of nature,science,culture,and morality.Please introduce novels about the people who have attained calm,creativity, and morality by living in nature.
What about the ';Little House on the Prairie'; books? All of the things you listed are included from time to time.
And remember the show called ';Grizzly Adams';? He lived in natural environments. I'm sure there are books out there, someplace.Please introduce novels about the people who have attained calm,creativity, and morality by living in nature.
Umm... read everything on Gautama Buddha, Socrates and other western philosophers. In fact, the history of both western and eastern philosophy would interest you. And for good measure, try Ralph Waldo Emerson. Each subject/person will lead you to something else that you'll want to know more about. Enjoy!
I definitely recommend ';On Walden Pond';, by Henry David Thoreau. And ';Sidharta';, by Hermann Hesse.
What about the ';Little House on the Prairie'; books? All of the things you listed are included from time to time.
And remember the show called ';Grizzly Adams';? He lived in natural environments. I'm sure there are books out there, someplace.Please introduce novels about the people who have attained calm,creativity, and morality by living in nature.
Umm... read everything on Gautama Buddha, Socrates and other western philosophers. In fact, the history of both western and eastern philosophy would interest you. And for good measure, try Ralph Waldo Emerson. Each subject/person will lead you to something else that you'll want to know more about. Enjoy!
I definitely recommend ';On Walden Pond';, by Henry David Thoreau. And ';Sidharta';, by Hermann Hesse.
How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of therodynamics is correct?
how does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of therodynamics is correct?How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of therodynamics is correct?
Living things present no problem in this regard, as they are
open systems and the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The creationists have tried to
get around this problem by claiming that the second law applies to open systems as well, but they are wrong.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of therodynamics is correct?
According to Isaac Asimov's definition:
Life is a localised negative-entropy phenomenon (or reverse-entropy, if you wish).
Living things are not in equilibrium, so the second law of thermodynamics is not broken. Life itself is a movement towards lower, not higher entropy. When life ends (i.e. at death), entropy again begins to increase.
*Please* be more specific. What do you mean by ';the nature of living things';?
Do you mean their ability to maintain life (exist as a thermodynamic system)?
Or do you mean the evolution of complex forms from simpler forms (evolution)?
Or do you mean the origin of life itself (abiogenesis)?
Each of these produces a very different, and potentially long answer.
{edit}
I have to reply to Roy E's answer ... even though it has nothing to do with the question.
Roy, you wrote:
%26gt;';The simplest parasite has 1100 base pairs in its DNA. Each base pair has three molecules that have to correctly form, a phosphate, a sugar and an amino acid. This means that 3300 molecules have to correctly form just to form the simplest parasite.';
No. That means that 3300 molecules have to correctly form just to form *THAT PARTICULAR PARASITE*!
This is the fundamental error in your entire argument!
(1) You are mistaking a single successful example of success as the *only* possible example of success.
But you are making so many other errors as well:
(2) You are computing the odds of an existing parasite occurring by random chance ... when you know quite well that said case did NOT arise by random chance, but by natural selection.
(3) The minimum number of base-pairs needed to support self-replicating molecules is *far* less than 1100. (Hint: Spiegelman showed that an RNA-based replicating molecule was possible consisting of only 218 base-pairs. Eigen and Oehlenschlager were able to achieve a replicating molecule with only 48 or 54 nucleotides).
(4) You talk of the three parts of a nucleotide as if they their assembly was an unlikely thing, and ignore the fact that (a) nucleotides (sugar-phosphate-aminoacid triplets) will self assemble, and remain free-floating, and (b) sugar-phosphate chains also form readily into stable backbones.
(5) How many different combinations of a small number of base-pairs would be considered *successful* events (i.e. able to continue self-replicating without further need for random combinations)?
(6) How many combinations of nucleotides were occurring *per microsecond* in all the oceans of the earth in the first billion years? How many earths are there, or have been, in the history of the universe?
I'm afraid you have a *lot* more work to do in your analysis.
Just to expand a little on the first two answer...
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases in a *closed* system that is out of equilibrium. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_鈥?/a>
Entropy is the production of energy by a *closed* system that cannot be used for work. Generally, this is seen in a loss of heat.
There are at least 3 arguments against using the second law as evidence against evolution:
1) Any biological system is hardly an isolated (or, more correctly, a closed) system, whether you look at the DNA, the chromosome, the cell, the individual, the population, the species, the ecosystem, the biome, or the Earth as a whole. This rules out the 2nd law of thermodynamics all by itself, almost.
2) Entropy is simply the loss of energy to an unusable form (heat). Many infer that entropy *always* means increased disorder, but that is not necessarily the case; it is not a one to one equation all the time.
3) It has been shown that, while the overall entropy of any closed system will always increase when out of equilibrium, it is possible that there may exist pockets within that closed system that actually show decreases of entropy.
I will be the first to say that chemicals becoming alive by chance arrangement could not have happened. But this is not because of thermodynamics. It is the nature of the chance.
Try this experiment. We will use a sequence derived from pi. Add one to each digit. 9 goes to 0. So we have 4.2526....
We will do searches for these sequences.
Sequence_______Occurrences
4.2526_________2,790,000
4.25260_________ 147,000
4.252603__________ 1,260
4.2526037____________56
4.25260376___________21
4.252603764___________2
4.2526037646__________0
We notice that in general for each character we add, the occurrence goes down by more than a factor of ten. Which makes sense because there are more than ten characters in the search set. Now lets say that each planet of 10^60 planets had an Internet and we could search all of that.
We could expect to find sequences that were 60 characters longer, or about 70 in length.
Now lets say that every second the entire universe was redone to give new chances. Now over 20 billion years this would increase the length by 18 digits. So now we are up to 88 that we can expect to find. The simplest parasite has 1100 base pairs in its DNA. Each base pair has three molecules that have to correctly form, a phosphate, a sugar and an amino acid. This means that 3300 molecules have to correctly form just to form the simplest parasite. There are conciderably more than ten molecules to choose from (based on Urey-Miller) If we underestimate at only 1000 then we have to have the opportunity for 10^9900 molecules to form before we get the one we want.
To account for diversity we can take the square root. That is to say 10^4950
This gap is ridiculous. 10^4950 vs 10^88. It is ridiculous to say with 10^88 opportunities, that anything can happen.
Yes 10^88 is a very large number. You could find enough info to do identity theft. But not life.
Living things present no problem in this regard, as they are
open systems and the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The creationists have tried to
get around this problem by claiming that the second law applies to open systems as well, but they are wrong.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of therodynamics is correct?
According to Isaac Asimov's definition:
Life is a localised negative-entropy phenomenon (or reverse-entropy, if you wish).
Living things are not in equilibrium, so the second law of thermodynamics is not broken. Life itself is a movement towards lower, not higher entropy. When life ends (i.e. at death), entropy again begins to increase.
*Please* be more specific. What do you mean by ';the nature of living things';?
Do you mean their ability to maintain life (exist as a thermodynamic system)?
Or do you mean the evolution of complex forms from simpler forms (evolution)?
Or do you mean the origin of life itself (abiogenesis)?
Each of these produces a very different, and potentially long answer.
{edit}
I have to reply to Roy E's answer ... even though it has nothing to do with the question.
Roy, you wrote:
%26gt;';The simplest parasite has 1100 base pairs in its DNA. Each base pair has three molecules that have to correctly form, a phosphate, a sugar and an amino acid. This means that 3300 molecules have to correctly form just to form the simplest parasite.';
No. That means that 3300 molecules have to correctly form just to form *THAT PARTICULAR PARASITE*!
This is the fundamental error in your entire argument!
(1) You are mistaking a single successful example of success as the *only* possible example of success.
But you are making so many other errors as well:
(2) You are computing the odds of an existing parasite occurring by random chance ... when you know quite well that said case did NOT arise by random chance, but by natural selection.
(3) The minimum number of base-pairs needed to support self-replicating molecules is *far* less than 1100. (Hint: Spiegelman showed that an RNA-based replicating molecule was possible consisting of only 218 base-pairs. Eigen and Oehlenschlager were able to achieve a replicating molecule with only 48 or 54 nucleotides).
(4) You talk of the three parts of a nucleotide as if they their assembly was an unlikely thing, and ignore the fact that (a) nucleotides (sugar-phosphate-aminoacid triplets) will self assemble, and remain free-floating, and (b) sugar-phosphate chains also form readily into stable backbones.
(5) How many different combinations of a small number of base-pairs would be considered *successful* events (i.e. able to continue self-replicating without further need for random combinations)?
(6) How many combinations of nucleotides were occurring *per microsecond* in all the oceans of the earth in the first billion years? How many earths are there, or have been, in the history of the universe?
I'm afraid you have a *lot* more work to do in your analysis.
Just to expand a little on the first two answer...
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases in a *closed* system that is out of equilibrium. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_鈥?/a>
Entropy is the production of energy by a *closed* system that cannot be used for work. Generally, this is seen in a loss of heat.
There are at least 3 arguments against using the second law as evidence against evolution:
1) Any biological system is hardly an isolated (or, more correctly, a closed) system, whether you look at the DNA, the chromosome, the cell, the individual, the population, the species, the ecosystem, the biome, or the Earth as a whole. This rules out the 2nd law of thermodynamics all by itself, almost.
2) Entropy is simply the loss of energy to an unusable form (heat). Many infer that entropy *always* means increased disorder, but that is not necessarily the case; it is not a one to one equation all the time.
3) It has been shown that, while the overall entropy of any closed system will always increase when out of equilibrium, it is possible that there may exist pockets within that closed system that actually show decreases of entropy.
I will be the first to say that chemicals becoming alive by chance arrangement could not have happened. But this is not because of thermodynamics. It is the nature of the chance.
Try this experiment. We will use a sequence derived from pi. Add one to each digit. 9 goes to 0. So we have 4.2526....
We will do searches for these sequences.
Sequence_______Occurrences
4.2526_________2,790,000
4.25260_________ 147,000
4.252603__________ 1,260
4.2526037____________56
4.25260376___________21
4.252603764___________2
4.2526037646__________0
We notice that in general for each character we add, the occurrence goes down by more than a factor of ten. Which makes sense because there are more than ten characters in the search set. Now lets say that each planet of 10^60 planets had an Internet and we could search all of that.
We could expect to find sequences that were 60 characters longer, or about 70 in length.
Now lets say that every second the entire universe was redone to give new chances. Now over 20 billion years this would increase the length by 18 digits. So now we are up to 88 that we can expect to find. The simplest parasite has 1100 base pairs in its DNA. Each base pair has three molecules that have to correctly form, a phosphate, a sugar and an amino acid. This means that 3300 molecules have to correctly form just to form the simplest parasite. There are conciderably more than ten molecules to choose from (based on Urey-Miller) If we underestimate at only 1000 then we have to have the opportunity for 10^9900 molecules to form before we get the one we want.
To account for diversity we can take the square root. That is to say 10^4950
This gap is ridiculous. 10^4950 vs 10^88. It is ridiculous to say with 10^88 opportunities, that anything can happen.
Yes 10^88 is a very large number. You could find enough info to do identity theft. But not life.
Does anyone know artists that used to draw living things from nature?
Please help I need to know a few artists that used to draw animate drawings from nature.Does anyone know artists that used to draw living things from nature?
Leonardo Davinci, Salvador Dali had a few work, Georgia O'Keefe loved flowers and insects. To know more seach for artists paitings on nature and living objects.Does anyone know artists that used to draw living things from nature?
Have you ever looked up Robert Bateman? he was a fantastic nature artist. He drew and painted all sorts of living creatures to try and save them from extinction. If your an artist and get anywhere close to him then your good. I love to draw animals and old barns.
Leonardo da Vinci used to draw animals when he was a little boy.
http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sun鈥?/a>
Leonardo Davinci, Salvador Dali had a few work, Georgia O'Keefe loved flowers and insects. To know more seach for artists paitings on nature and living objects.Does anyone know artists that used to draw living things from nature?
Have you ever looked up Robert Bateman? he was a fantastic nature artist. He drew and painted all sorts of living creatures to try and save them from extinction. If your an artist and get anywhere close to him then your good. I love to draw animals and old barns.
Leonardo da Vinci used to draw animals when he was a little boy.
http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sun鈥?/a>
Can the behavior of living organisms in nature be predicted?
If so to what degree?Can the behavior of living organisms in nature be predicted?
Yes, of course. But as you state, only to a certain degree. That degree is based on as many variables are there are organisms.
Life is orderly and predictable, until it starts to evolve. But once it evolves into something different, it generally regains that orderly and predictable state, and maintains it for a time, until is it time for it to evolve even further... it's a cycle, just like life itself. :-DCan the behavior of living organisms in nature be predicted?
Sure, but with every organism, the degree changes. The variables are too many. Most plants will turn to the sun. You can count on that. Human behavior however, depends on intelligence, environment, nurture, education, opportunity, etc... It's kind of a big question, in that it covers all living organisms.....no one simple answer can cover all that. But overall: yes.
In Sanskrit this is called ';samudrikha shastra'; It actually deals with signs or marks on the body, These change s per our behavior, thoughts, and mood or feelings with respect to the present environment. Many of us know it as ';body language';.
This subject has been studied and still data is being collected, co relating the data it is possible to predict to a certain degree of accuracy depending on the expertise we have gained.
Astrology also helps to a great degree in this topic, here also the level of expertise we have developed in the study and understanding and practice of Astrology will enable the level of accuracy.
mind reading is another art or skill developed by people who have gained proficiency with very high purity of development in the development of guiding our own mind and consciousness, this can be coupled with breath harmonizing of that particular living being, the prerequisites to this state of mind is ';saraswathi gajhrana'; invoking goddess of learning consort of lord Brahma, it is one sub chakra that is activated by breathing technique that enables one to connect to the cosmic memory. This also enables one to the knowledge of all language of all living beings, thus every sound they make can give us the clue of the behavior
The way ';life'; is, I personally believe in ';most'; cases you can predict them to a good extent. For ex., if you put a stress on anything, it should react. However, if you we're able to predict everything, wouldn't many things never changing? and never changing is non-existent in nature.
Yes. People who spend time with animals learn their habits and can predict their behavior. People who call animals unpredictable haven't spent enough time with them. Your second question is dependent on too many variables to be answered. To what degree can you predict human behavior.
If you are talklng homo sapiens, probably not.
If you are talking insects, mammals, and other species, it depends on how well the species has been studied.
To a 100% degree of certainty; NO!
Yes, of course. But as you state, only to a certain degree. That degree is based on as many variables are there are organisms.
Life is orderly and predictable, until it starts to evolve. But once it evolves into something different, it generally regains that orderly and predictable state, and maintains it for a time, until is it time for it to evolve even further... it's a cycle, just like life itself. :-DCan the behavior of living organisms in nature be predicted?
Sure, but with every organism, the degree changes. The variables are too many. Most plants will turn to the sun. You can count on that. Human behavior however, depends on intelligence, environment, nurture, education, opportunity, etc... It's kind of a big question, in that it covers all living organisms.....no one simple answer can cover all that. But overall: yes.
In Sanskrit this is called ';samudrikha shastra'; It actually deals with signs or marks on the body, These change s per our behavior, thoughts, and mood or feelings with respect to the present environment. Many of us know it as ';body language';.
This subject has been studied and still data is being collected, co relating the data it is possible to predict to a certain degree of accuracy depending on the expertise we have gained.
Astrology also helps to a great degree in this topic, here also the level of expertise we have developed in the study and understanding and practice of Astrology will enable the level of accuracy.
mind reading is another art or skill developed by people who have gained proficiency with very high purity of development in the development of guiding our own mind and consciousness, this can be coupled with breath harmonizing of that particular living being, the prerequisites to this state of mind is ';saraswathi gajhrana'; invoking goddess of learning consort of lord Brahma, it is one sub chakra that is activated by breathing technique that enables one to connect to the cosmic memory. This also enables one to the knowledge of all language of all living beings, thus every sound they make can give us the clue of the behavior
The way ';life'; is, I personally believe in ';most'; cases you can predict them to a good extent. For ex., if you put a stress on anything, it should react. However, if you we're able to predict everything, wouldn't many things never changing? and never changing is non-existent in nature.
Yes. People who spend time with animals learn their habits and can predict their behavior. People who call animals unpredictable haven't spent enough time with them. Your second question is dependent on too many variables to be answered. To what degree can you predict human behavior.
If you are talklng homo sapiens, probably not.
If you are talking insects, mammals, and other species, it depends on how well the species has been studied.
To a 100% degree of certainty; NO!
List five assumptions about the nature of living things that support the concept of evolution by natural selec?
List five assumptions about the nature of living things that support the concept of evolution by natural selection.List five assumptions about the nature of living things that support the concept of evolution by natural selec?
1. traits are heritable
2. heredity has source(s) of variation
3. variation in survival success
4. variation in reproductive success
5. reproductive capacity is greater than population carrying capacitycoolest myspace
1. traits are heritable
2. heredity has source(s) of variation
3. variation in survival success
4. variation in reproductive success
5. reproductive capacity is greater than population carrying capacity
What appeals to you most - living nature or stones and rocks?
Living rocks and stones.
The ones by the beach 'sing' to my friend...What appeals to you most - living nature or stones and rocks?
both. coz they prove that there are living and not, bad and good, beatiful and not, happy moments and trails...
in short-- balanceWhat appeals to you most - living nature or stones and rocks?
I recently moved to a very green city and found the beauty of having living nature around you. Howevr, I always had a thing about rocks and rocky landscapes, so I say rocks and stones.
Who says stones and rocks are not a part of living nature ? The Stones Rock!!
Well alright.
.. but because they are inanimate, sturdy and reliable they are home to thousands. millions of bacteria, shelter to humans as well as animals. They provide highways and walls and weaponry and keep safe our precious metals and gemstones. I have list and lists of the uses for stones and rocks. Without rock and stone the world would be soft and porous, unable to sustain the winds and the water and the assaults of nature. I think we undervalue our world, our home. I am happy to say I have been called a rock. I considered it a complement.
living nature
Nature is beautiful, but animals touch the heart with their love, their humor, and their pranks.
All things in creation both animate and inanimate are beautiful. Each has its place in the universe.
its a pretty irrelevant question....
Perhaps some tests made by shrinks find relevant the answer.
I think I preffer a combination of stones and living nature. But if I have to choose, I would like better living nature , because is , in fact, earth and stone evolved, isn't it?
The ones by the beach 'sing' to my friend...What appeals to you most - living nature or stones and rocks?
both. coz they prove that there are living and not, bad and good, beatiful and not, happy moments and trails...
in short-- balanceWhat appeals to you most - living nature or stones and rocks?
I recently moved to a very green city and found the beauty of having living nature around you. Howevr, I always had a thing about rocks and rocky landscapes, so I say rocks and stones.
Who says stones and rocks are not a part of living nature ? The Stones Rock!!
Well alright.
.. but because they are inanimate, sturdy and reliable they are home to thousands. millions of bacteria, shelter to humans as well as animals. They provide highways and walls and weaponry and keep safe our precious metals and gemstones. I have list and lists of the uses for stones and rocks. Without rock and stone the world would be soft and porous, unable to sustain the winds and the water and the assaults of nature. I think we undervalue our world, our home. I am happy to say I have been called a rock. I considered it a complement.
living nature
Nature is beautiful, but animals touch the heart with their love, their humor, and their pranks.
All things in creation both animate and inanimate are beautiful. Each has its place in the universe.
its a pretty irrelevant question....
Perhaps some tests made by shrinks find relevant the answer.
I think I preffer a combination of stones and living nature. But if I have to choose, I would like better living nature , because is , in fact, earth and stone evolved, isn't it?
What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
1. What is the name of the Egyptian hieroglyphics relic uncovered in 1822 which helped reveal the mysteries of the Ancient Egyptian culture?
2 What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
3 What are the three noteworthy observations concerning the term myths?
4 For the earliest human beings, how did technology influence their lives?What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
What is the word for someone who needs to do their own homework?What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
Fail
Ummm... Do your own homework?
2 What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
3 What are the three noteworthy observations concerning the term myths?
4 For the earliest human beings, how did technology influence their lives?What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
What is the word for someone who needs to do their own homework?What is the term used to define the belief system that suggests all forces of nature inhabited living spirits?
Fail
Ummm... Do your own homework?
How can fox be obese living in nature, not at the zoo?
How do you think? Could anyone feed it? And what can they eat, except rodents, birds and other living creatures?How can fox be obese living in nature, not at the zoo?
Obese animals are rare in nature, because obesity is a disadvantage for the animal. However, if there is an overabundance of food than it is possible that an animal may be obese. In the zoo obesity is much more common. We can overfeed some animals and the animals have much less exercises than in the wild. In the wild they have to hunt for food which causes them to inevitably loose calories.How can fox be obese living in nature, not at the zoo?
If there were a fox anywhere near me, I would be feeding it until it was perfectly round with its legs not able to touch the ground.
If they were near a large resource of food such as a landfill, they could become obese. Foxes are omnivores so anything of value foodwise could be consumed.
Obese animals are rare in nature, because obesity is a disadvantage for the animal. However, if there is an overabundance of food than it is possible that an animal may be obese. In the zoo obesity is much more common. We can overfeed some animals and the animals have much less exercises than in the wild. In the wild they have to hunt for food which causes them to inevitably loose calories.How can fox be obese living in nature, not at the zoo?
If there were a fox anywhere near me, I would be feeding it until it was perfectly round with its legs not able to touch the ground.
If they were near a large resource of food such as a landfill, they could become obese. Foxes are omnivores so anything of value foodwise could be consumed.
What do you recommend me to read that is about living in nature, surviving in wild, or some sort?
Into the Wild could be one book but it's a film already... I would like something similar to this book.. any ideas, guys?What do you recommend me to read that is about living in nature, surviving in wild, or some sort?
Have you ever heard of Alive by Piers Paul Read, it's the story of the soccer team that's stranded in the Andes mountains, they end up eating the dead people on the plane, it's crazy but totally about survival. Try it!What do you recommend me to read that is about living in nature, surviving in wild, or some sort?
Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George. I haven't seen Into the Wild, but this is about a girl who lives with wolves (as the title suggests). =)
Have you ever heard of Alive by Piers Paul Read, it's the story of the soccer team that's stranded in the Andes mountains, they end up eating the dead people on the plane, it's crazy but totally about survival. Try it!What do you recommend me to read that is about living in nature, surviving in wild, or some sort?
Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George. I haven't seen Into the Wild, but this is about a girl who lives with wolves (as the title suggests). =)
How are Cockatiels living in nature in Australia?
I am a Japanese , and I love Cockatiels very much!
How are Cockatiels , which don't live in human houses, living in nature in Australia?
We, cockatiel-lovers in Japan, keep Cockatiels in our house as a member of family.
So, we can't image cockatiels of nature fly freely in Australia ,though often hearing it.
In銆€Japan, crows and sparrows are always seen in both the cities and the country,everywhere.
Can you ,in Australia, see cockatiels, as if we always saw crows and sparrows?
Though most of us hate crows because crows銆€scatter銆€our銆€garbage,
do you,Australians, like cockatiels of nature?
Are they seen as harmful birds?
I wish you to love them.How are Cockatiels living in nature in Australia?
http://www.cws.org.au
This is the website for the currumbin widlif sanctuary on the gold coast.
Check it out for more info.How are Cockatiels living in nature in Australia?
I have studied in Australia and Africa, and i have to say this much, over the years of doing my research, they are as pesky as pigeons in the states. As a matter of fact they shoot the cockatoos out of barns just like we do for destroying the crops.
As per one comment to the life span, cockatiels can live up to 35 years in captivity depending on the diet you feed. The main staple of any bird in their natural enviroment are insects and then dead carcasses (dead animals). The bones being very important to their diet for the bone marrow which is high in protein, calcium, and rich in nutrients. Birds are meat eaters if given the chance.
Since birds are controlled by humans in captivity, they are not living as long as they should be. Why you ask, because of what we humans are taught to feed them. If we put a little common sense together and treat them as children, they will live longer and happier lives with us.
Cockatiels, cockatoos, forage in gardens, and fields and become pests just like any normal birds would do in the wild. When they flock together they can become pest, and destroy also.
Good luck!
I have 2 cockatiels right now..and i ve had others in the past..they do very well in captivity. One i had lived to be 15 yrs old. They do better in captivity cuz there arnt preditors to eat them and such.
I love cockatiels. i dont live in australia. i would assume they just fly around like other birds but arnt nusences.
Hope that answers your question
How are Cockatiels , which don't live in human houses, living in nature in Australia?
We, cockatiel-lovers in Japan, keep Cockatiels in our house as a member of family.
So, we can't image cockatiels of nature fly freely in Australia ,though often hearing it.
In銆€Japan, crows and sparrows are always seen in both the cities and the country,everywhere.
Can you ,in Australia, see cockatiels, as if we always saw crows and sparrows?
Though most of us hate crows because crows銆€scatter銆€our銆€garbage,
do you,Australians, like cockatiels of nature?
Are they seen as harmful birds?
I wish you to love them.How are Cockatiels living in nature in Australia?
http://www.cws.org.au
This is the website for the currumbin widlif sanctuary on the gold coast.
Check it out for more info.How are Cockatiels living in nature in Australia?
I have studied in Australia and Africa, and i have to say this much, over the years of doing my research, they are as pesky as pigeons in the states. As a matter of fact they shoot the cockatoos out of barns just like we do for destroying the crops.
As per one comment to the life span, cockatiels can live up to 35 years in captivity depending on the diet you feed. The main staple of any bird in their natural enviroment are insects and then dead carcasses (dead animals). The bones being very important to their diet for the bone marrow which is high in protein, calcium, and rich in nutrients. Birds are meat eaters if given the chance.
Since birds are controlled by humans in captivity, they are not living as long as they should be. Why you ask, because of what we humans are taught to feed them. If we put a little common sense together and treat them as children, they will live longer and happier lives with us.
Cockatiels, cockatoos, forage in gardens, and fields and become pests just like any normal birds would do in the wild. When they flock together they can become pest, and destroy also.
Good luck!
I have 2 cockatiels right now..and i ve had others in the past..they do very well in captivity. One i had lived to be 15 yrs old. They do better in captivity cuz there arnt preditors to eat them and such.
I love cockatiels. i dont live in australia. i would assume they just fly around like other birds but arnt nusences.
Hope that answers your question
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)