I don't think I understand. An amoeba, if it could have ideals, would have something similar to human ideals? Is that what the "if it could" part means?

Nature could still be self-aware, but unable to act.

I don't think it's unsettling at all. It's enlightening, at least to me. It's so very easy for us humans to place ourselves on that grand pedestal, proclaiming mastery of the universe. But, really, we're just creatures, creatures here on Earth, albeit with the very unique abilities aforementioned.
Not a bad thing at all. It's a stepping stone to humbleness, I think. A humbleness we often misplace during our climb up that pedestal.

I agree that we are a product of nature and reliant upon it. With the way you've defined nature you are saying that we are part natural and part unnatural (the conscious part). I'm not sure the conscious is unnatural, but I don't think that's important in this context.[1]. . .

Well, in a hypothetical where it was best for the world, nature, our community and the other lifeforms if we as a species went extinct, would you take that option? [2]

I don't really see an argument for a non anthropocentric take on the issue. We use nature for our own gain and we don't have it's best interests at heart--because it doesn't have any interests, only we do.[3] So pollution etc is only bad if it comes back to hurt us out of proportion to the benefit it provides.

I think it is unsettling. Humans are generally not accustomed to thinking of themselves as part of everything (outside of those who believe in a divine plan). If most people stop and think of how we are infinitesimally small compared to everything and, more importantly, a part of it. An analogy would be voting in an election. We are all apart of the decision, but we are all a very small part and each of us individually has no real bearing, we must be taken as a whole. :detective:

Does anyone else feel our place within the ecosphere or Gaia as it is commonly known, is as a cancer?

We reproduce out of control and consume everything we can, destroying the ecosphere and most of the things in it.

Even given our huge potential for knowledge we still choose capitalism as our political system. A Darwinian ideology which says everyone for themselves - a rat race.

Potentially we will wipe ourselves out in the next century and I can't help but think 'no great loss'.

I've felt this way and can definitely identify with your sentiments. Yes, I often think Agent Smith had a point there euphemistically. But we are a product of nature, how we act and what we do could be viewed as cancerous (and indeed it often is), but that doesn't change what we are.

I'm deeply ashamed of the damage we do to ourselves, our surroundings and other creatures; all in the name of consumption (as if this is a good thing). Yea, I think there's a good chance we'll wipe ourselves out too, and I too feel that if this ends up being the case, it's no-big-loss; not in the larger scheme of things.[INDENT] I look upon our species' desire to mass produce and mass consume kind of like a long, heavy train running down a hill; yes, it can be stopped before we destroy ourselves, it's just not every likely. 1) There's not much desire to do so -and- 2) Even if everyone did want to change, there's a large chance we couldn't stop it in time. [1]
[/INDENT]The point of this thread is: Given our intelligence and ability to evaluate conditions, we have the potential to be the 'only voice' for life; rather than spend our time looking for more efficient ways to consume and destroy it. This being the case, do we have a moral obligation (as part of a community) as well as motivated-self interest to be that "Advocate"? The more we look at ourselves as being a part of this community, the more one is likely to see value in conserving and renewing. [2] . . .

Subject: Humanity and it's "place"

I know we like to ping-pong between the extremes of naturalism and the often-false dichotomy drawn between our nature and the natural world. But what do you all think of this: [INDENT]On this planet, there is one species that brings self-aware consciousness to the table, in the community of life. It is the one thing humans have that all the others don't. What they express (how they live, their problems, ideals, needs, productive and destructive behaviors alike, etc.) are but an indicator of what any life form, in this setting, might manifest - if only it could.
[/INDENT]Nothing earth shattering, I don't think, but I thought it post-worthy.

Thanks

"We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe."

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

I'm deeply ashamed of the damage we do to ourselves, our surroundings and other creatures; all in the name of consumption (as if this is a good thing). Yea, I think there's a good chance we'll wipe ourselves out too, and I too feel that if this ends up being the case, it's no-big-loss; not in the larger scheme of things.

I don't think I understand. An amoeba, if it could have ideals, would have something similar to human ideals?