Wilhelm44

@aurum Morphic fields are another example of the staggering complexity and intelligence that goes into nature. Trying to play God in this domain is a slippery slope into a whole range of unanticipated consequences. We need a major breakthrough in clean affordable energy. That would be evolution.

@aurum Go and spend a month in nature and really connect deeply with all of it. And then see if you still have the same vision.

@aurum This is going to sound New Age, I know. But this planet is a living being, just like you and me. Do you think it will take kindly to you, a fleeting visitor, deciding in your infinite wisdom that you have the right to replace the entire current eco system, with something of your making. I see that more as a horror movie script. I know you mean well though.

Or perhaps your vision has some enormous flaws, have you considered the possibility ?

@aurum If you really had a strong connection with nature, you wouldn't take the potential replacement of trees with mechanical trees so lightly.

Did you even read his post ?

Just don't be replacing all the trees with mechanical trees. Something very valuable will be lost that way. (See Carl Richard's post in the Off Topic section titled: I touched a tree.)

@aurum Come on, you know it's possible to have a thriving civilization that finds a way to live in harmony with nature.

@aurum If anything is a fantasy, it would be the replacement of nature with our own creation. That sounds like a scientist's wet dream.

It's not nature's fault that we are in a crisis. If we have technology to create designer trees, then surely we can aim our technological powers at cleaning up our act in an effective way. Yes of course organic farms are not perfect. But when you go food shopping, you don't go looking for GMO products, or maybe you do ?

I once worked as a security guard at a big corporate building in London. Long shifts, but you work for 4 days, and then you have 4 days off. The pay was okay. Best thing about the job is having so much time at work to do contemplation and meditation.

@aurum Hypothetical situation: Lets say the crisis is over, no more pollution etc. Do we really have any reason left then to change the design of a tree for example ? ps I get it, it would be really cool to have a tree with fluorescent leaves etc. But we can create parks in cities for that kind of thing, we don't need to replace nature as such.

I have no problem with geoengineering used for a planet in crisis. But when the crisis is over, and lets say we have major breakthroughs in clean technologies, and pollution is a thing of the past, then I see no reason to replace nature with something mechanical or genetically modified. There's a reason why you choose organic food over something that's been genetically modified for example. (How about we just use all our technological powers to clean up our act. )

Just because God created geoengineers does not imply that it's a good idea to try and replace nature somehow. God also created murderers and rapists. I'm sure geoengineering has it's place and purpose though. But the whole notion of trying to improve nature seems silly. As if nature is the problem and not us. I have asked you many times, give me one example of something in nature that you feel needs to be improved ? And yes, it's arrogant to think that we can improve nature, when we're not even close to understanding it fully.

@aurum When creating nature, do you think God was half assing it ?

Good luck with that, How do you expect even our best geo engineers to be creating from a higher level of intelligence than the level of intelligence that created nature in the first place ?

@aurum I have no problem with geo engineering helping us out in a crisis. But when I hear talk of thinking that we can 'improve' nature somehow, I hear ego, not God per say. Nature was created from another level of intelligence, we won't be able to out create that.

Your answers are very evasive. It's a simple question, forget about the engineers, how would you personally like nature to be 'better' ? Just give one example of something that you would like to see 'improved' in nature ?

I asked you, which part of nature is not to your liking ?

Which part of nature is not good enough for you ? How would you improve a tree or a flower or a bird or a mountain or the ocean ?

But there are consequences on this level of existence. For example, interfere with nature too much and see what happens.

You still havent answered my original question. Why would you want to replace anything in nature with your own creation ? Especially since you dont have a problem with nature and you say it's lovely ?