There’s an idea. Could be like ‘capitalism with compassion.’ Problem is, humans are generally compassionate only when it’s self-serving. When backed into a corner, we tend to fight for self interests and not the greater good. We need another life; one that is not self-seeking, selfish, self centered, etc.

Conscience based, peaceful human living would imply everyone agrees on what’s right and wrong. To many extremists, we are considered infidels and worthy of annihilation. The real question is how to have genuine oneness. Heck, we’re not even one with ourselves! :-\

You also wrote…
“With regard to the media, supply and demand absolutely are the crux but if we demand more of what is truly important and directly affects us instead of only what we “enjoy” hearing and seeing wouldn’t that change the status quo of what gets reported? If it truly is supply and demand and we demand, then they should supply, correct? How do we accomplish this? I have no idea.”

Again, you understand the problem and the solution. What we don’t know is the process required to arrive at the solution. Hmm… we’ve tried activism, education, patience, family values, what’s left?

Your question gets into another matter about which I just wrote a paper. Too much to go into here. Basic gist is: When we were a production based society, restraint was status quo. With the transition to a consumer based culture, impulse living is legitimized and self-gratification becomes status quo. My question is, Do you think it’s possible to return?

With regard to the media, supply and demand absolutely are the crux but if we demand more of what is truly important and directly affects us instead of only what we “enjoy” hearing and seeing wouldn’t that change the status quo of what gets reported? If it truly is supply and demand and we demand, then they should supply, correct? How do we accomplish this? I have no idea.

If we have the capability to make positive impacts as we have made negative impacts (and we can muster up the WILL) then yes, there is hope, isn’t there?!?

If, as you say, there is a world beyond the physical, then you may not have to leave this one to discover that one. The fact that mankind conceives of an uncreated plane of existence must indicate our ability to ‘know’ that sphere here and now.

My proof is that other creatures do not consider or conceive of anything beyond the space/time plane of existence. As creatures, they live instinctively and then return to dust. Humans are the only creatures who create objects of worship that transcend creation. The fact we can consider existence apart from and beyond death; an eternal existence; UNcreation, proves there is a part of our being that correlates.

That part of our being is the key that unlocks the mystery of our human life.

As always, enjoy your posts.

My faith tells me that when I leave the physical world I will be given all the answers.

As for your last assumption that we will never know the answer to why we are here, I find that illogical, untenable, implausible, and unsavory for this reason: By nature we seek to understand everything around us. From macro to micro, man has always expressed an insatiable appetite for knowledge. If there can be no consummation to our quest, then the pursuit is vain and we would be the most miserable as a result. Better to be a honeybee that follows it’s rote instinct for 6 weeks and then dies than to experience the joy of discovery only to be left void and 6 feet under. If there is no satisfying answer to this question then even our discourse over these matters is pointless and we are reduced to an existential nihilism without God and without hope in this world; free to do what we choose but then, who cares and who wants to anyway.

“Nature does not depend on me and you don’t either.”

because you also say,

“We both depend on nature, however, and should therefore consider the consequences of our interaction with it.”

We are a part of nature, as we are living things, and there are several definitions that will back that up. Therefore, being a part of nature, and you saying, “”We both depend on nature,” means we do depend on nature, meaning nature depends on us. This is not just a play on words. We are made up of organic material, or the 118 elements you mentioned, not “sunlight, solar flares, a lunar tidal effect, and various meteorites that enter our atmosphere,” therefore, we are nature.

Nature does depend on all of us.

“Why are humans alone able to create imbalance at will?”

Because we are also capable of bringing balance “at will,” as you said with reference to us having a negative impact. We have “the potential to make a positive one as well.”

Maybe nature wanted to see if it could “willfully” survive, so it created us as a challenge, or maybe we were created by a higher power with its intentions unknown. Chances are, we will never know the answer as living beings on Earth.