Everything that exists walks towards an end. It's only a question of time until it disappears forever or becomes part of something else.
Our knowledge is a the stage where we can trace almost everything back to the smallest parts. So if we follow this logic down the line we come to these two smallest opposites, which would be a positive and a negative energy. Knowing the laws of nature "opposites must coexist" we can define that the positive energy came first, because positive represents the starting point of existence, and negative the end. Out of that positive energy must naturally emerge a negative opposite. So where does it come from? Well, there is another entity existing that we can logically prove…time. So if time is immemorial it could've been the spark that ended positivity, thereby creating negativity and in the process created something new, because "all actions have consequences".
That would be my logical explanation using the laws of nature known to men. The big question mark is…what is time? Is it it's own? Is it bound to existence? How came it into existence? Will it also end or is it the ultimate death of all? And if that's the case… what's the natural opposite of time?
That's parasitical behavior and it's fully restricted to a host, in our case this ecosystem, which is finite. Meanwhile natural law dictates that the host will fight the parasite to death or shake it off to survive. Now, our ecosystem can't really shake us off and if we want to flee we need more knowledge, which we can only get if we live in accordance to natural law, which means not attacking our ecosystem, otherwise the consequences of our actions will prevent us from surviving. How can we learn from nature if we destroy it? Now your counter argument would be "but not in our lifetimes"…well, that's pure hedonism, it's grabbing the short term benefits, while ignoring the long term consequences, which is exactly how the shit all started.
Yes, our enclosed ecosystem, in which every part is necessary to sustain the whole system. If you take out one part, the rest must naturally adapt to it, which is a negative, because it's a loss. Multiply this by time and amount of loss and you'll soon see massive negative consequences, like, you know…look around you.
I don't know anyone who ever left this ecosystem, neither do you. What is the universe to us, other than hearsay? It's completely irrelevant, until proven otherwise.
Call me back when a human actually brings a bunch of real rocks from the moon, otherwise we are restricted to what we have and what we create out of it.
That's called adaptation, and you would use it too, which means you would use your wealth to stop them. That is creating conflict, not a conflict about natural survival, but one about hedonism (greed), which nature will punish with death. So then then you have war on your hands. not really the positive outcome you were looking for, but the negative consequence you ignored for so long and here comes the mob of peasants running towards you representing natural order.
How would they know about red M&M's if you already have all? Why would they make more knowing that you come and take them all from them like before? What is your obsession with reds? Are you a racist? Are M&M's are brown inside, user.
Consequences, user. These animals were food for other animals, who then become weaker, which makes them easier prey for predators. Nature will slowly adapt, but the negative consequences will catch up and effect everything over time. Now imagine crimes like these committed by billions of humans globally, some of them even doing it on industrialized scale…the consequences will come, we can already see them everywhere.
Natural temptation, leads to hedonism, which is self destructive.
A replica is never the original. And before you argue that…imagine a replica of yourself? Now defend that concept and tell me it has the same worth.