Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
man v. nature * 2
    #25028659 - 02/28/18 12:26 PM (6 years, 29 days ago)

Nature may appear brutal from a certain perspective -- even "red in tooth and claw" -- but it strikes me that it could possibly still be a more intelligent system than what man has created from scratch. Throughout history, civilization has generated more murder and mayhem than any ecosystem ever documented, with the notable exception of great extinction events -- one of which, I must point out, is right now being perpetrated by man and his institutions.

Does this seem to you to be a valid observation? Who is wiser: Nature or man? (And please, do not get carried away with the tired assertion that man is a part of Nature. I present this dichotomy strictly as between the biological world (which includes tribal societies) and man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies. Let's not get caught up in a game of semantics.)

I think this quote by Marvin Harris is relevant:

Quote:

For the past five or six millennia, nine-tenths of all the people who ever lived did so as peasants or as members of some other servile caste or class. With the rise of the State, ordinary men seeking to use nature's bounty had to get someone else's permission and had to pay for it with taxes, tribute, or extra labor. The weapons and techniques of war and organized aggression were taken away from them and turned over to specialist-soldiers and policemen controlled by military, religious, and civil bureaucrats. For the first time there appeared on earth kings, dictators, high priests, emperors, prime ministers, presidents, governors, mayors, generals, admirals, police chiefs, judges, lawyers, and jailers, along with dungeons, jails, penitentiaries, and concentration camps. Under the tutelage of the state, human beings learned for the first time how to bow, grovel, kneel, and kowtow. In many ways the rise of the state was the descent of the world from freedom to slavery.  --from Cannibals and Kings




--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,061
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25029550 - 02/28/18 04:57 PM (6 years, 29 days ago)

well we have to keep studying nature, and becoming more in tune with it to extend the cultural imperative which is really to tell stories so that we never forget nature and our history in it.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,299
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25029875 - 02/28/18 07:06 PM (6 years, 29 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Nature may appear brutal from a certain perspective -- even "red in tooth and claw" -- but it strikes me that it could possibly still be a more intelligent system than what man has created from scratch. Throughout history, civilization has generated more murder and mayhem than any ecosystem ever documented, with the notable exception of great extinction events -- one of which, I must point out, is right now being perpetrated by man and his institutions.

Does this seem to you to be a valid observation? Who is wiser: Nature or man? (And please, do not get carried away with the tired assertion that man is a part of Nature. I present this dichotomy strictly as between the biological world (which includes tribal societies) and man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies. Let's not get caught up in a game of semantics.)

I think this quote by Marvin Harris is relevant:

Quote:

For the past five or six millennia, nine-tenths of all the people who ever lived did so as peasants or as members of some other servile caste or class. With the rise of the State, ordinary men seeking to use nature's bounty had to get someone else's permission and had to pay for it with taxes, tribute, or extra labor. The weapons and techniques of war and organized aggression were taken away from them and turned over to specialist-soldiers and policemen controlled by military, religious, and civil bureaucrats. For the first time there appeared on earth kings, dictators, high priests, emperors, prime ministers, presidents, governors, mayors, generals, admirals, police chiefs, judges, lawyers, and jailers, along with dungeons, jails, penitentiaries, and concentration camps. Under the tutelage of the state, human beings learned for the first time how to bow, grovel, kneel, and kowtow. In many ways the rise of the state was the descent of the world from freedom to slavery.  --from Cannibals and Kings







I see obvious differences, but not inherent ones. All those words comes down to who is and is not in charge. Going with your dichotomy nature can be a very destructive yet cold unthinking thing and with much smaller populations it's easier to see how a person may feel master of their domain. I can agree with the first postulate by seeing the willfulness of man in contrast to the indifferent workings of the "weather" and the second with the caveat that tribes had/have leaders but also in many cases a more priestly figure of authority and likely various other figures. The sense of belonging and cohesiveness got left behind for the average person but the system persisted and evolved. The best warriors and the wisest elders, then masters of trade and language and stars, people to extend the leaders authority, etc. It just kinda spiraled into what it is today as these social systems evolved. Of course there's no proof they were more noble or innocent back then. That's probably where our politicians and priests of the day skill set comes from. Craftiness, lying, manipulating. I'm not saying everyone does/did react in that manner, but it's possible therefore likely. Also the mind's capacity for creative thinking, visual and auditory memory, perceptiveness of underlying causes (logic), language and more that we imagined ourselves as animals and began injecting the thought process into that imagination.

I think it's worthwhile to see the differences in perceptions of ourselves and nature, but to also question them. I don't see it being a tired assertion but one which might add to the relevancy of the subject. To answer your question of who is wiser, nature is not wise it just is. Man is wise only when he is humble because he knows he is of nature.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #25030812 - 03/01/18 03:01 AM (6 years, 29 days ago)

I find two things wrong with your OP.

1. Even a cursory look over the predatory-prey dynamics that have spontaneously formed in nature shows us how heartless nature is, our modern societies for all their faults are in my opinion at least, better equipped to promote human welfare than raw nature.

2. The state is a product of economic development via the increasing division of labour, the state doesn’t force these things, it adopts them post hoc.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 13 hours, 43 minutes
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #25032335 - 03/01/18 09:49 PM (6 years, 28 days ago)

What exactly do you mean by "intelligent"?

It sounds to me like you're asking if nature is more moral than man.

I think it is not just semantics, but that humans are clearly and obviously part of nature. Its very strange to me to compare just humans to the rest of nature - yes we have unique characteristics, but so do all the other forms. How can we just lump all the trillions of other forms into one group and average out their intelligence or morality or any other trait?

Perhaps there is a good reason for us to have domesticated and enslaved ourselves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25032606 - 03/02/18 12:53 AM (6 years, 28 days ago)

Ecosystems are pretty full of murder and mayhem on a smaller scale, with ants brutally tearing apart grubs and whatnot.

I think it may be a valid observation that man has his thumb on the syringe and there's a needle with some bad stuff being injected into the Earth.

Nature is happier, more content, resilient, easy going, able to endure, man is fickle, sometimes. A snake can stare at a wall for 3 days and smile all the while, it can be without bother doing it. Or at least appear to be.

Who is wiser though?

Well, we have utilised nature, we have changed how it is to better suit our needs and without our touch it would not be as it is in our cities and our technologies. In the context of electricity and magnetism I think mankind is the wiser of the two, when it come to how to endure I think nature is the wiser of the two.

Tutelage doesn't sound all that bad in the right circumstances, I mean I wouldn't mind my taxes going towards my tuition being paid.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGreen7Alchemist
Draco
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 12/28/16
Posts: 2,171
Loc: Mayami
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25032893 - 03/02/18 07:18 AM (6 years, 27 days ago)

nature.


--------------------
Trip 7
THUG - ISLAM - BIBLE
streets disciple
CHRIST IS KING.

Sunshine said: "Gangsters are super heroes"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system Flag
Re: man v. nature [Re: blingbling] * 2
    #25032924 - 03/02/18 07:38 AM (6 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
1. Even a cursory look over the predatory-prey dynamics that have spontaneously formed in nature shows us how heartless nature is, our modern societies for all their faults are in my opinion at least, better equipped to promote human welfare than raw nature.



Fucking LOL. I find this hysterical.

Modern society is absolutely horrific in regards to the promotion of human welfare. I'm sure the brainwashing provided wants us to believe that 'it's best for us all', but to that I say; LIKE FUCK.

Fuck everything to do with 'man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies'. Fuck em and all that they stand for.

The rest of my life will be geared towards getting as far away from that disastrously unhealthy shit as possible.


--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecez
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,856
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25033106 - 03/02/18 09:27 AM (6 years, 27 days ago)

Man has the ability to overcome the tendencies nature has ascribed to him.  Man > nature.

Man’s cognition is the essence that came from an illusion that came from the primordial essence.  First was space/emptiness/nonexistence, then creation, then man. 

In identifying with space/emptiness/nonexistence, man is reunited with what created nature.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: man v. nature [Re: Jokeshopbeard] * 1
    #25033780 - 03/02/18 02:18 PM (6 years, 27 days ago)

I'm more in tune with your perspective, Jsb. Civilization surely has a lot to offer, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, but the planet had remained pretty well balanced, perfectly sustainably, for literally billions of years, only interrupted by great extinctions, until civilization appeared around 8000 BC. In 10,000 years we have exploded the balance of this planet to the point of crisis, taking out millions of species, and destroying the Earth's living habitats -- which of course are our own habitats just as much as they are those of others. It will take some miracle to fix this mess given the population size.

In that sense, it seems the various ecosystems, when they are healthy, operate more successfully over the long term than man's system of institutions and their associated ideological framework. That is what I meant when I suggested that man has not yet surpassed nature in terms of having a balanced, sustainable system, and that nature is therefore more fundamentally intelligent.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25033898 - 03/02/18 03:07 PM (6 years, 27 days ago)

Given the amount of time we've been here's that's like asking who is 'more intelligent', a toddler or a professor?

I do still think we've squandered such chances to advance ourselves sustainably.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,061
Re: man v. nature [Re: sudly]
    #25033988 - 03/02/18 03:58 PM (6 years, 27 days ago)

well don't just give up


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: man v. nature [Re: sudly]
    #25034728 - 03/02/18 09:10 PM (6 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Given the amount of time we've been here's that's like asking who is 'more intelligent', a toddler or a professor?






Well that's the crux of my point. The entire myth or ethos of civilization is that it constitutes an improvement, in every way, over hunting and gathering, and nomadism, etc. When in fact, if we move this veil aside a bit, we see that this isn't quite the case. But it's relevant because the vast majority believes, unquestioningly and unthinkingly, that this myth is proper and accurate. And of course relatedly, a sea slug is billions of times more complex than our fastest supercomputer, even still. So there is an objective side of this coin which represents, in essence, a reality in which the biosphere of Earth has been fine-tuning itself for almost four billion years, and the cultural complexification of some human societies has been developing for only the last eight or ten thousand. Little wonder we have so many catastrophic problems.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035061 - 03/03/18 01:37 AM (6 years, 27 days ago)

People of the ancient times thought our resources were unlimited. That I see as the main problem which did lead to those wrong foundations of 'culture'.

But there s hope.
We know, the sun will explode in about 5 billion years.
If humans would be an overly greedy species, chances are high, that they don't manage to settle out in space (in time), because they cause too many conflicts and problems on earth, so they extinguish themselves or the exploding sun will take care of them. Problem solved.
We only can survive, when we manage to leave this planet. We have enough time, but this time is limited still.
People only will manage to settle on other planets, if they don't destroy themselves before. So they either kind of balance themselves out, which includes forms of cooperation with themselves and their habitat, or they go extinct.

Or ... AI takes over. Then we would have to think about of what value we are compared to them to have the proper right to exist anyhow.
edit: Else, chances are high that AI will take care of us in the one or the other way.

Edited by BlueCoyote (03/03/18 01:44 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: Jokeshopbeard]
    #25035088 - 03/03/18 02:26 AM (6 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

Jokeshopbeard said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
1. Even a cursory look over the predatory-prey dynamics that have spontaneously formed in nature shows us how heartless nature is, our modern societies for all their faults are in my opinion at least, better equipped to promote human welfare than raw nature.



Fucking LOL. I find this hysterical.

Modern society is absolutely horrific in regards to the promotion of human welfare. I'm sure the brainwashing provided wants us to believe that 'it's best for us all', but to that I say; LIKE FUCK.

Fuck everything to do with 'man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies'. Fuck em and all that they stand for.

The rest of my life will be geared towards getting as far away from that disastrously unhealthy shit as possible.




How much time have you spent in the wilderness? I only ask because most people that spend a lot of time in nature and among wild animals tend to think we have it pretty easy in comparison.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035107 - 03/03/18 02:57 AM (6 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I'm more in tune with your perspective, Jsb. Civilization surely has a lot to offer, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, but the planet had remained pretty well balanced, perfectly sustainably, for literally billions of years, only interrupted by great extinctions, until civilization appeared around 8000 BC. In 10,000 years we have exploded the balance of this planet to the point of crisis, taking out millions of species, and destroying the Earth's living habitats -- which of course are our own habitats just as much as they are those of others. It will take some miracle to fix this mess given the population size.

In that sense, it seems the various ecosystems, when they are healthy, operate more successfully over the long term than man's system of institutions and their associated ideological framework. That is what I meant when I suggested that man has not yet surpassed nature in terms of having a balanced, sustainable system, and that nature is therefore more fundamentally intelligent.




What do you think of the idea that the human race is like a seed pod in the sense that we take up a lot of energy to produce but we spread the genetic heritage of the organism to new worlds ie. we might be the ones that seed new planets with life. Would our environmental destruction be morally justified if we were to create new worlds?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlue Wrench
Bolt Turner
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/17
Posts: 243
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035412 - 03/03/18 07:45 AM (6 years, 26 days ago)

Interestingly enough this is what the bible has been saying all along, mankind is stupid as shit compared to God. I mean if we are personifying the force of mother nature and calling it "wise" then we might as well agree it is synonymous with a supreme diety or "God."

Not trying to validate the bible or anything, just saying that observations of this sort are nothing new and your OP reminded me a lot of a sermon I heard when I was a kid in church, reminding the congregation that all the wisdom of man is inevitabley doomed towards failure. Although my experience was more to get a "So you better fucking get on your knees and beg forgiveness" sort of response.


--------------------
Bods Easy AF Link List

Most teks have too much bullshit. These methods by bod do not.

Edited by Blue Wrench (03/03/18 07:47 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: man v. nature [Re: blingbling]
    #25035564 - 03/03/18 09:17 AM (6 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
What do you think of the idea that the human race is like a seed pod in the sense that we take up a lot of energy to produce but we spread the genetic heritage of the organism to new worlds ie. we might be the ones that seed new planets with life. Would our environmental destruction be morally justified if we were to create new worlds?





But where does it stop? If all we do is grow for the sake of growth, we'll just go on to destroy other worlds too. But it occurs to me that, as one poster pointed out above, A.I. will be a major factor. It seems to me that man is not destined for the stars, but our cybernetic descendants would be perfectly suited to it. They could send out millions of robotic probes, whereas humans require a ridiculous degree of life support just for something so trivial as a single mission to Mars.


I am reminded of this bit by George Carlin:

Quote:

Ah, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dog shit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?




--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMeatSack
Stranger
I'm a teapot
Registered: 06/23/17
Posts: 227
Loc: The Netherlands Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: Blue Wrench]
    #25035567 - 03/03/18 09:18 AM (6 years, 26 days ago)

Get a cat, let it go outside, and hope it's not a complete pussy that doesn't hunt (or be lucky that you're not responsible for all those unnecessary deaths by having a cat lol), and you will find out how ruthless nature can be.
Those little fuckers pretty much torture anything they catch.
But it's not like they're purposely doing it, they're most likely just "playing" with their catch to make sure it's alive, and that it's something they can eat and that can't hurt them before they really dive in, and to keep their hunting skills up to par of course.
It's not like they're little psychopaths or something, it's all just instinct, programmed behavior that was needed in order for them to survive before they became our little helpers.

Something tells me that might be the case with humans too more often than not.
Even though most humans would claim they really have control over their own actions and they can explain the choices they make with logic, to me it seems like more often than not this is not the case and people are just doing things for whatever reason and try to come up with reasons for their behavior afterwards in order to be able to justify it.

Which leads me to the distinction a lot of people make between nature and us, as if we somehow stopped being part of nature just because we managed to figure out some more complicated things.
You might think it's semantics but I think the very fact that so many people seem to think we're so different from other animals and we're somehow not really part of nature anymore is causing us to overlook the cause of a lot of the problems we humans are causing, and you're obviously less likely to solve a problem if you don't know what's causing it.
We're actually even making ourselves sicker both physically and mentally by distancing ourselves from nature more and more, and by crating these artificial environments for us to live in, so I wouldn't say we're particularly wise. I don't know about other animals than us, but sometimes when I look at my cats I get the feeling that we're not really giving other animals the credit that I think they might deserve lol.

If anything I bet plants and/or fungi are probably wiser than any animal.


--------------------
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.” - Carl Sagan

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: man v. nature [Re: Blue Wrench]
    #25035575 - 03/03/18 09:22 AM (6 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

Blue Wrench said:
Interestingly enough this is what the bible has been saying all along, mankind is stupid as shit compared to God. I mean if we are personifying the force of mother nature and calling it "wise" then we might as well agree it is synonymous with a supreme diety or "God."

Not trying to validate the bible or anything, just saying that observations of this sort are nothing new and your OP reminded me a lot of a sermon I heard when I was a kid in church, reminding the congregation that all the wisdom of man is inevitabley doomed towards failure. Although my experience was more to get a "So you better fucking get on your knees and beg forgiveness" sort of response.





I am not referring to God when I use the word "Nature." Nature is self-contained and autonomous, and can evolve very much on its own.

Moreover, the notion I have put forward that man is not master of the natural world, and that we do not control Nature, goes completely against the Bible and any religious order affiliated with it. Your point doesn't make much sense to me.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NATURE OF LORD-NATURE OF TEACHER dattaswami 574 4 06/04/05 08:03 AM
by Icelander
* Natural Selection Pressure on Humans
( 1 2 3 4 all )
psychomime 5,576 72 08/11/05 12:47 PM
by Icelander
* Welfare
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Demon 8,587 114 02/26/03 04:43 AM
by z@z.com
* Natural/Man Made
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SpecialEd 4,798 64 04/17/04 02:28 AM
by SpecialEd
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,870 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Why do we exist? How? - A compilation of theories and ideology
( 1 2 3 all )
PerfectChaos 4,718 50 07/22/05 12:22 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The nature of.. nature.
( 1 2 all )
RedHarvest 4,547 26 10/04/01 07:00 PM
by MrKurtz
* Dualistic nature of oneness ninjapixie 289 0 11/24/04 06:00 AM
by ninjapixie

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,746 topic views. 2 members, 15 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.