Thanks for your responses, fvtrader and Alex,
I appreciate the spirit in which you made nature your model, fvtrader. I, too save, so I hear you all the way. I guess, though, what I'm trying to struggle with is the difference between what is "natural" and what is "super-natural."
That is, if we really took nature as a model, well, there are a plenty of "bad" examples one can take, for example ...
* Natural selection = the basis of eugneics, Nazism, elitism, etc. Killing handicapped/disabled/elderly members, because they take up limited resources, which are better allocated to those who can successfully reproduce.
* Mass destruction, for example, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, wiping out vast amounts of life quickly.
* Mass pollution, for example volcanic eruptions spilling millions of times more CO2 and soot into the air in weeks than humans could ever do in centuries.
* Dog-eat-dog ... Outside of one's own pack, there's no forgiveness or mercy in the natural order. It's kill or be killed; conquer or be conquered.
* Incest, pedophilia, rape, orgies, depception, greed, rage, murder ... all abound in "nature" and there are no laws or justice. It simply happens, and life goes on.
* Disease, parasitism ... all are very natural!
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
It seems like to be an enlightened human, one must go beyond nature, to become super-natural, and not go by what is observed "naturally."
Your take?
