Wilhelm44

Just don't be replacing all the trees with mechanical trees. Something very valuable will be lost that way. (See Carl Richard's post in the Off Topic section titled: I touched a tree.)

@aurum Come on, you know it's possible to have a thriving civilization that finds a way to live in harmony with nature.

@aurum If anything is a fantasy, it would be the replacement of nature with our own creation. That sounds like a scientist's wet dream.

It's not nature's fault that we are in a crisis. If we have technology to create designer trees, then surely we can aim our technological powers at cleaning up our act in an effective way. Yes of course organic farms are not perfect. But when you go food shopping, you don't go looking for GMO products, or maybe you do ?

I once worked as a security guard at a big corporate building in London. Long shifts, but you work for 4 days, and then you have 4 days off. The pay was okay. Best thing about the job is having so much time at work to do contemplation and meditation.

@aurum Hypothetical situation: Lets say the crisis is over, no more pollution etc. Do we really have any reason left then to change the design of a tree for example ? ps I get it, it would be really cool to have a tree with fluorescent leaves etc. But we can create parks in cities for that kind of thing, we don't need to replace nature as such.

I have no problem with geoengineering used for a planet in crisis. But when the crisis is over, and lets say we have major breakthroughs in clean technologies, and pollution is a thing of the past, then I see no reason to replace nature with something mechanical or genetically modified. There's a reason why you choose organic food over something that's been genetically modified for example. (How about we just use all our technological powers to clean up our act. )

Just because God created geoengineers does not imply that it's a good idea to try and replace nature somehow. God also created murderers and rapists. I'm sure geoengineering has it's place and purpose though. But the whole notion of trying to improve nature seems silly. As if nature is the problem and not us. I have asked you many times, give me one example of something in nature that you feel needs to be improved ? And yes, it's arrogant to think that we can improve nature, when we're not even close to understanding it fully.

@aurum When creating nature, do you think God was half assing it ?

Good luck with that, How do you expect even our best geo engineers to be creating from a higher level of intelligence than the level of intelligence that created nature in the first place ?

@aurum I have no problem with geo engineering helping us out in a crisis. But when I hear talk of thinking that we can 'improve' nature somehow, I hear ego, not God per say. Nature was created from another level of intelligence, we won't be able to out create that.

Your answers are very evasive. It's a simple question, forget about the engineers, how would you personally like nature to be 'better' ? Just give one example of something that you would like to see 'improved' in nature ?

I asked you, which part of nature is not to your liking ?

Which part of nature is not good enough for you ? How would you improve a tree or a flower or a bird or a mountain or the ocean ?

But there are consequences on this level of existence. For example, interfere with nature too much and see what happens.

You still havent answered my original question. Why would you want to replace anything in nature with your own creation ? Especially since you dont have a problem with nature and you say it's lovely ?

So when im being a devil i get a free pass because im still God, I dont think so.

And how do you know that nature wants to be replaced ? It just seems like the peak of human arrogance to me.

What proble A better question would be, what problem do you have with nature ? Why this fantasy of being able to replace nature ?

Of course we are part of evolution. That doesnt mean we should replace nature just because we can

Nature knows how to evolve just fine. You are saying maybe you would, maybe you would'nt. So lets say you would. Once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you still want to replace nature ?

Okay, lets say these categories dont exist, lets say its all God. Still the question is there, once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to somehow replace nature ?

Once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to replace nature with something else ?

Can you try and answer my question first ?