Why is human development considered unnatural?

So, basically, the general consensus is that we are unnatural because we have not fought advancement. Forget progress! What we need to do is look for the bare necessities. Advancement is the scourge of nature. Perhaps if we were all to discontinue thinking and trying to needlessly advance our species (or society as a whole), we would be able to allow ourselves to devolve back to a creature based more on instinct, and we would have a more level playing field.

Man has no more right to dominion over the earth than does any other creature. Take the echidna, for example. What makes us think we are any better than these creatures? Echidnas have souls too.

I understand what you are saying about the lion, but people need to be the ones to change first. Humans are the ones who have mindlessly tried to think for themselves instead of just following their primitive animal instincts. Since we are the ones who have caused the most trouble in this way, we need to be the ones to initiate a change. Maybe after other species see our willingness to switch over to our base instincts, they will decide to be more considerate of those they share this world with also.

Some might suggest that this could be done by not using other creatures for sustenance, but they often say this only to turn to a bowl of greens for their next meal. I find this terribly ignorant. Science has shown us that plants are also living creatures. They too have souls. It is completely unfair for us to assume that we animals have any more right to eat plants than the plants do to eat us; yet if we would only look to the beautiful rose bush, or any other plant, we would find the answer to living harmoniously with all of nature. These beautiful, green beings have looked within themselves and found a way to survive without harming any of us. This is why i propose that all of nature bands together to utilize photosynthesis for our survival. I believe that such a selfless move would cause all of us to become one, so that we would no longer be individual beings, but we would eventually reach the point where we would be joined together as one body, a body known not by separate specie names, but known only as "nature."

If we are able to accomplish this, we will be able to minimize our differences that too often push us apart today. We would all be aware that man, the echidna, and the rose bush all posses a soul, which earnestly yearns to be joined with the rest of nature. Throwing off the discriminatory chains that cause us to judge one another based only on what species someone is would allow us to all be considered complete equals, or more accurately, one equal. Maybe this sort of thinking would even allow us to regress back to the point of an ultimate utopia: a world where man, echidna, and rose bush could be joined completely together as a single celled organism, driven only by instinct and a love for our mother earth.

It really isn't the need for development, it is the extent and the expendability at which humans perform this. Now I realize that loss of habitat for other species really doesn't concern most of those in the Western world. We have been taught from Biblical times that we shall have dominion over the lesser creatures, but from a moral humane standpoint, is this right? We may exterminate a creature who may hold our future for survival in it's genetic makeup. It is our obligation, most especially to ourselves,to set an example being the superior beings on this planet. We are given a conscience and the ability to plan for the future, beyond our own needs, what other animal has that capability? I am speaking globally, not about insects in a hive or squirrels socking away nuts for the winter, I am talking about a much grander scale

I have only one thing to add.... from this geologists view "The past is the key to the future" Develop away, there have been other extinctions in the past, there will be one in the future.

One more thing.... Nuclear waste... there are literally thousands of drums of acidified spent plutonium rods waiting to be disposed of. The US Government, in it's eternal wisdom wants to secure a place known as Yucca Mountain for this disposal. Now, if a little bit of thought had gone into this Nuclear Race about 50 years ago, would we have that problem today? I know, I know, we need to be able to "shape our environment"

It is better to beg forgiveness than ask permission

I believe this is a simplistic view.

We are unnatural in the extreme. We veered from any sort of natural course the moment one man realized that if he built himself a bigger house he would be thought a bigger man. To that end, it would be natural for us to use the materials in our birth area to create our habitats, feed our young, and generally create our lives. We do not do this. We take from all corners of the globe to comfort our lives. Who amongst us would have paprika, or brass, or 20 pairs of shoes, or 3 TV sets (you get the point) in their 'habitat' were we following the course nature had planned for us?

However, nature gave us brains and fingers. Left at that we might still be engaged in club to club battle but nature also gave some of us ambition, which I believe is the guiding force in our ruinous domination over nature. Without ambition the world would be a more natural place and humans more harmonious.

I don't think that 'human development' could ever be anything but 'unnatural' ... because we can THINK about what we are going to do next, as opposed to simply reacting to things on 'instinct.' I do think, though, that many people try to 'think green' because the human population keeps GROWING while many 'animal populations' are shrinking, and those 'green thinkers' are at least half 'correct' ... we do need to 'develop enough space for us' but they think that the 'animals' can live 'just fine without us' ... but that can only ever be a 'theory' and not something we can actually 'know' because we must 'be here' to see anything happen. So what can you 'do' to change the way that people 'think about animals?' That is up to you ... but I think that your 'argument' here is 'wrong' although you have said 'nothing that isn't true' ... so why don't you 'concentrate' on finding a way for 'humans' to continue to develop while leaving 'enough room' for the animals to live 'according to their natures' ... and then you may 'speak out' on that, instead of simply 'complaining' because 'human's don't make any real sense.'

i say we are unnatural because we manipulate energy because we can't adapt to the earths climate, and thus, manipulate matter, some of which we can't see to survive, which no other animals do on planet earth.