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