LEARN FROM NATURE
Long back I faced a big thinking problem; 'how to think totally correctly'. It is very necessary in a problem, to know the basics
and fundamentals of relevant questions and issues with full certainty, to get the solution correct and to be certain about it. See a
mathematical example. A teacher shows 3 packets of sweets to some students. Number of sweets are marked outside the packets as
25, 30 and about 15. The teacher asks the students to find out the total number of sweets. The answers are 70, 70+, 68, 55 and about
70. Evidently, about 70 only is fully correct and others are wrong because those students could not add correctly the uncertainty of
'about' to the numerical total. Seeing differently, a small doubt about one element of the problem caused a net uncertainty in the
solution. But in relation to social, political, moral and national issues, ' whose fundamentals are fully acceptable', 'which party or religion
is correct' , are serious problems. It is not possible to ascertain these, perhaps always. This is the reason for the provision of
fundamental rights of 'freedoms of expression, religion, faith, party, philosophy, conscience etc. in many national constitutions and in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In relation to natural or biological things also, the problem exists. For example, population control, family size, adolescence
and courting, public health, use or exploitation of natural resources etc., the views are different for liberals, orthodox sects, theists,
atheists, materialists etc. So ' who is fully correct?'. Or, is it unnecessary or impossible to think fully correctly or to know with absolute
certainty? This was my big problem, a philosophical one, long back.
Then I turned to nature, when something deep-inside prompted me, 'learn from nature, animals, plants and weathers,
uncorrupted by human bias, beliefs, philosophies,institutions and greed'. It took many years for me to solve many problems and
dilemmas (e.g. urban pollution and environmental degradation, limits of wealth and happiness, good-bad chasm). I had to study lots of
literature on forest life, and think widely comparing forests, villages, cities and different cultures. It was a big project with links to many
basic issues and practical, day-to-day life. It was surprising to understand that fully natural ways of life(so evolving life) exists only in
forests, where humans live as hunter-gatherers, like other animals. In this mode of life, all activities, right from sensing-perceiving to
storing food for coming lean season, are according to background situations of weather( e.g. temperature, humidity). Hence the full
body and mind (from seeing level to hypothalamus level) are integrated with nature, untouched and uncorrupted by beliefs, myths,
theories or machines. Then I understood the vast differences between forests and cities, fully balanced and evolving environments and
highly artificial, unbalanced, polluted habitats. The differences then seemed to me to be unbridgeable or totally out of balance. (See
'GREEN LIFE' for more details and a holistic solution.)
It is a very basic point that lives in different groups or cultures (from foresters to urbanites) have different levels of qualities
and values. They are, (1) natural, (2) familial, (3) communal or social, (4) professional and (5) cultural or national; the last two can,
perhaps, be only among humans who communicate using languages with scripts. In forests only the first three levels are significant.
For many agriculturists and urbanites, professional grouping and related values are strong and of long term nature. As humans
progressed (or regressed?) from forests to cities, the natural and familial qualities became less and less significant and professional
and cultural qualities started dominating. What are these qualities and values? One need not necessarily go to a forest to understand the
natural living ways of the foresters. Study a rural farmer or tribal and use imagination to look back into the forests. In addition to this, I
studied literature and watched documentaries. Below are some basic features and qualities of foresters and other animals, I could
gather.
1. Forest animals, including humans, only live fully natural lives from day-to-day preying and eating to
seasonal nesting and mating.
2. They are fully dependent on environment, rains, weathers, seasons, biota etc. and live instinctually,
except humans. Bow and arrow, primitive cooking and weaving, symbols and language etc. are results
of long term intelligent activities.
3. All animals including humans are gatherers and/or hunters. Some foresters have household farming
of small scales. Nature provides for all daily needs. No need to accumulate and inherit.
4. Infants are fully dependent on parents and parents bring up them to self-sufficiency (only)
5. Some animals breastfeed their infants. Some bring foods from distant places to nests. Some store inside their
bodies and later ' vomit' and feed their infants.
6. Animals love and care for others of the same group. They do play together, dance,coach, kiss,sniff, shed
tears etc. Communal chimpanzees live in comparable ways as forest -humans.
7. Foresters have no artificial clothing or wears except leaves or barks. In hostile weathers animals take
cover under rocks, trees etc.
8. No permanent or lifelong houses and no storage of foods for lean periods, except in some cases of
ants , termites, bees etc.
9. All forest-humans are equal in possessions except for height, weight, strength etc.
10. No violence except under threat or trespass.
11. No killing except preying for food.
12. Common sources of water and foods are maintained as common by natural ways of domination by muscle power, age,
group strength etc.
13. Plants, big and small, live in natural balance with animals forming different ecosystems.
14. Put together, the integrating factor is ecological balance - ' from each according to its capacity, to each according to its
needs'. Hence no over-exploitation, misuse, or waste. Waste foods are eaten by other animals or naturally recycled.
Now study a rural area where farming,trading and bartering prevails. From forests to big cities, one can see different types
of rural villages, influenced to different degrees by cities. The most conspicuous difference from a forest is the presence of permanent
houses of different types but all made of local materials. All villagers wear some sort of dresses. The landless farmers, in some
regions, have only loin clothes. Dresses indicate professions or possessions like land, house, domestic animals etc.. Even though
there are different types of houses, jobs and workers in a village, they are very less compared to a city. Typically people consist of
landlords, farmers, landless farm workers, traders, craftsmen, priests, teachers, jobless and wanderers. Even though forest products
are available in villages, main economic activities are farming, animal rearing and trading or bartering. A comparative study of lives of
foresters and rural people would show that the vast differences in lifestyles are caused by, (1) learnings of farming, animal rearing,
house construction, social organization etc., (2) private property and other possessions, (3) different jobs or professions, (4) organized
and separated families and (5) established ways of inheritance of properties. Fundamental to all these factors is private properties, both
intellectual (e.g. learnings and nurtured skills) and material and their proper management.
Come to the urban areas. Modern urban lives are mainly a consequence of scientific and technological developments,
industrialization, mechanised transports, concrete buildings and electronic communication facilities. Currently more than 50% of
humans are drowned in industrialism, urbanism and consumerism. All urbanites misuse or waste something, somehow. Presently
for the sake of urban development, natural resources and forests are over-exploited. Industrial products are misused or wasted to
ensure flow of products from factories into markets. Private vehicles of all sorts are encouraged at huge costs to environment, health
and social evenness. Urban lives have very little to compare with those of villages. What are the big differences? They are, (1) high
population density, (2) different types of properties like land, houses, shops, offices, vehicles etc. (3) widespread uses of machines and
various vehicles, (4) wide variety of services and businesses, (5) facilities like piped water, electricity, buses, trains etc., (6) big colleges
and training centres, (7) pleasure and luxury services like hotels, tours etc. and (8) large number of jobless idlers and wanderers with
big floating populations. In a city anything is possible compared to a village. Here what matters are investments, profits,wealth,show,
authority, popularity, fame and luxuries. In these greedy pursuits, how many are victimized or sacrificed are not seen or discussed. It is
stated in the beginning (third paragraph) that natural and evolving situations exist only in forests. Existing situations in urban areas, all
areas perhaps, are disintegrative and unhealthy due to pollutions and environmental imbalances.
What are the most conspicuous comparative features between forests, villages and cities? In a forest, everything is bound by
natural forces and unwritten laws of ecological balance, without causing any accumulation (private properties) or waste. All live naturally
for the overall benefit (evolution) of nature. Even though many types of private properties and wealth exist in a village, their accumulation
and uses are tightly regulated by natural forces and values, traditions and moral institutions. Cities are very much different. In the cities,
people say, " hundreds of opportunities and jobs, no limits for growth or riches, all sorts of pleasures". It is true that in cities
opportunities and levels of growth are high, but so are greed, corruption and disorder. As humans progressed from forests to cities,
they lost evolutionary qualities, natural values, healthy environments and social evenness and order. City administration is not a legal
and smooth process but mismanagement and chaotic. Different types of pollutions, crowds, vehicles' congestion etc.(see GREEN LIFE)
are products of mal-administration. Urban stress, diseases etc. are due to lack of self-discipline, mixed-up priorities of health-care and
spoiled ecological balances. OUT OF THESE THREE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSES OF DISINTEGRATION (MAL-ADMINISTRATION, LACK
OF VALUES AND SELF-DISCIPLINE AND ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCES), THE FIRST TO BE RESTORED IS ECOLOGICAL OR NATURAL
BALANCES. This needs complete clean-up of polluted regions and restoration measures (see GREEN LIFE). Then comes health-care,
and personal values tuned to nature, (i.e., natural values or eco-ethics) . Thereafter administrative problems would be solved
automatically. (Visit www.eeiu.org/articles/EEIU_Eng.pdf for some ideas on ethics in ecology,environment etc.)
Author Comments/questions Site map Home

