Why won't the balance of nature meme not die? Who is to

it's mostly old people and housewifes that spend their entire day gardening.

it's an illusion, most people fall for it.

>>2132468
So it will die out? I have a feeling that young people still believe it

File: Percentage_of_the_World_Population_Over_65_-_1950-2050.png (23KB, 707x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 707x500px

>>2132478
it will only get worse.

>>2132480
Is the balance of nature something Western? I know the Aztecs and Chinese viewed things different. But what about the rest?

>>2132483
Don't advocates of the meme often justify it with "asian wisdom" platitudes?

>>2132490
Not in my experience in my country

>>2132483
it's a first world thing.

only cultivated lands appear ballanced.

people living in third world shitholes realize nature is chaotic.

balance of nature?

>>2132675
Op thinks that natures doesnt sort itself out even though its been around for millions of years.

>>2132702
our universe has been around for about 14 billion years and it's still a complete clusterfuck.

I don't understand the problem?

If you say that a human body tries to maintain 37 degrees, is it wrong to say that there is a balance?

>>2132715
that the biology of a species is balanced doesn't mean nature is.

nature is chaotic, what lives in it is not.

>>2132722
That seems to me a very shortsighted. But I am someone who thinks that there is connection between the smallest phenomena and the largest phenomena. Certain things work in this universe with it's rules and are common, like the ball shape.

But of course if the "balance of nature" theory assumes that things will are supposed to remain in certain state forever, that is wrong.

>>2132727
>But I am someone who thinks that there is connection between the smallest phenomena and the largest phenomena.

and that connection is equal to some bad internet provider.

it loses and regains it's connection constantly.

nature fucks up constantly and fixes itself up constantly as well.

File: balance of nature.png (23KB, 877x478px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 877x478px

>>2132728
I fully agree with that.

Anyway I don't think there is much point in this discussion, I am almost sure that I'm misunderstanding something since I am not familiar with this fad and what the common understanding of it is.

>>2132497
>people living in third world shitholes realize nature is chaotic.
That's false.

>>2132736
It's not a fad at all, "balance of nature" is basically just a layman term for ecosystems and food chains and such.

A four year old isn't going to understand all of the scientific terms. And our ancient ancestors didn't have the scientific terminology to explain it that we do today.

So our ancestors, and urban parents today, explain it in general "spiritual" terms like nature being balanced. Rather than saying no one subspecies is going to populate the fuck out of control, eat all the food, then starve to death. Because the apex predators keep the lesser species in control by frequently culling from their herds/flocks.

Basically it's the nature equivalent of telling a little kid that babies come from mommies and daddies loving each other very much.

The only people who take it seriously in a religious sense are people who hold nature itself on a religious level. Like hippies and native americans.

>>2132819
So it's the oversimplification that is the problem.

What about the balance between chaos and order? Without order nothing can exist, without chaos nothing can evolve, and so on.

Personally I don't have an issue with this. If an asteroid crashed to Earth splitting it in half, certainly destroying all life on it., that is balance of nature to me. It will go on somewhere else, at least as long as the universe still remains habitable.

>>2132702
This is what I mean. When I think of "nature in balance" I'm actually not implying it is (pure) chaos. Rather it is in flux, and species haven't evolved to be in "perfect balance". See also ecological fitting, catastrophe theory and chaos theory.

>>2133087
I was supposed to write:
>When I think "nature in balance" is wrong, I'm not actually implying it is (pure) chaos