I hear this and that, whereever I go and went. It is either that people open up around me or I receive their messages in various other forms and ways. Some things I heard where more interesting than others and some things helped me and maybe them later on in life. Only when I try to open up this “ability” seems to fade or stop working.
One thing I heard was about some kind of natural limits related to things like the length of hair, body size and such things. And that it was that some people just have naturally longer hair than others, so they might be able to cut it again and again, but it will always grow back at some point (if they don’t burn the roots or get a sickness or something).
Well, it seemed plausible and got me thinking about things, while the actual thing (hair size) wasn’t really what was interesting me.
And I know that I was not the first to think these things, probably not the first to write or share it, it doesn’t matter. Lies and “garbage” gets shared, thought about and written down each day in million different forms. So why not think about important things and something which probably involves all of us and life on earth as a whole.
When you ignore the possibility that scientists can maybe do this or that, alter genes and so on and we just focus on natural approaches, maybe you can already guess where I am going with this. I mean, yes, natural limits, but what do I mean with that when seen in a bigger scale or perspective?
Let’s take children and birth as an example. And this is not whether some people want children, should have gotten any or such things, it is just about nature and possible limits or its self-regulation. And I am not talking about natural selection, which is a problematic topic in my eyes.
And yes, my post are usually very long and … well, let’s get to the point.
If there would be a limit to all life on earth, let’s say the number of beings per species (ants, humans, elephants, bumble bee, …) then a lot of topics like “over-population” are nonsense. At least in the context of nature and earth, because of course in some countries or especially cities, there really are too many people. Which means, too many people on one point / location. If they would relocate and live in other areas, there would be less stress for everyone. But again, this isn’t about these things.
And I of course don’t know the limit of nature, so I can’t tell a number or say how it exactly works. For me it is a matter of choice, necessity, resources and balance of course. Although as mentioned in other posts, “balance” is a word I don’t like because it was used in so many weird and confusing ways and makes people limit themselves or do crazy things (depending on who we are talking about and how they understood it).
There wouldn’t be a need to kill animals in a trial to prevent this “over-population”, since in nature it might not even exist. And with nature I mean the more natural way of things.
How might it work and why should we not mess with it?
Let’s say the limit for humankind is something around 9 billion, just to have an example. Then what would happen?
The need to get children would get lower or simply not come up, depending on the individum.
Why is this not a problem and doesn’t go against children?
If there actually would be a limit, then it would of course also be a trial to get to it (again).
So when there would be a natural catastrophy (for whatever reason), some of a kind, like humans, could die or maybe die as a cause of it later on. Then some people who might have had the wish to get children, would get children, since there would now be “space” to fill.
Although this seems very technical and strict, I wouldn’t take these “natural limits” as strict as humans usually take things, especially some people…
So there could be some more or less people, since humans and probably other species also have a choice and such things.
Why is it important to make a clear difference between a human or computer trial to control population and the natural “control” of these things?
Nature (or whatever you want to call it) pays attention to feelings, needs and knows what might be good or bad for you, other than computers or some humans for example. In some cases even yourself.
Why is this a problem? And how gets it a problem?
When you understand that most of our so called “advanced” and “important” rules are either nonsense or irrelevant, you might understand that it is very confusing and terrible (to say the least).
And other like some humans, nature is very kind, foregiving and accepting.
Which doesn’t mean it can’t and doesn’t fight back, but usually in other ways than humans would do.
Back to the natural limits.
When you would place all these 9 billion people (our exemplary “maximum” / natrual limit) around the globe, there would be enough space for everyone, people could still visit each other and we would also have way healthier and, in case we would want to, productive lives. Or just relax and have fun, since most things work on their own anyway. And with productive, you could also mean to write new stories, think about games to play and maybe where to travel or whatever. Unlike sitting at home or at work all day, without going anywhere for the most part.
When humans make rules or think about them, they often try to make the strict or perfect, but that is not how nature works. Otherwise we would be not alive and just machines executing some code based on electrical impulses or whatever.
And you should understand, that technology and nature are no enemies, at least not as long as there is respect for both of them. Nature also allowed you to create technology, so why should it be something completely unwanted? But we should probably make technology which is actually “perfect” and reduce the need for it whereever we can. Because a lot of things really don’t need so much technology, when nature can balance out itself pretty good without these things.
In a radical approach you could of course say, that we should get rid off technology, but again, nature (in my eyes) has no problem with it, as long as it is on an acceptable level. And not like nowadays: MORE, MORE, MORE! – Which is mainly caused by the need to produce willingly flawed deviced to be able to sell slightly different versions soon after, wasting resources, people and … well nature.
Why would nature hate you for having a camera? Why would it hate you?
The camera is in your control and can also be used to support nature and yourself or others. For example (like some people here with their blogs and websites) you can make photos of nature, of things which shouldn’t be and also support some other people or show different ways of life and so on.
So why should nature hate you for that?
Other than the need to make a photo of everything and everyone in your life, only to have trillions of photos of people and things you might not even liked, actually knew, wanted nor understood. Or just of yourself.
So why do you need that?
Some people just make photos of their everyday meal, themselves all the time or what new iphone they bought and such things.
Do you or they need that? – Not really, but they can of course do that. It is just not helpful in any way.
Hey and don’t get this wrong, if you just make a photo of yourself or your food or something for fun, why not? 😀 I am more talking about some kind obsession or “need” to do it, which might end up in a very unhealthy endresult (in either way).
So …. now that we know that nature can self-regulate and also tries to do it once in a while, but humans (or machines or whatever) interfere with it, we could maybe find a lot of better ways. Because no one wants that earth will look like Mars or Venus, at least according to the pictures of them. Or do we?
Or that we would all die, since nature hates us and all we did, or do we?
I also believe that nature can safe some of us, according to our personal ideas, choices and what we might feel, do and so on. So it might only try to “get rid off” those who badly betrayed it. Sadly choices and human actions and dependencies make it difficult from time to time to protect those you love and fight those you hate or wish to be different from what they are.
Nature also tries to find peaceful solutions whenever possible and so it might not even be natural that animals eat each other or we eat them. Although it is said to be natural. Would you call a machine gun natural?
Yet nature made it possible. Is it now a natural thing? No. Therefor the need to eat “each other” might actually be not natural as well and could be more some kind of sickness, psychological trauma of nature or might even be caused by the technology we / it created. Or maybe others?
Some teacher in my secondary school also were worried about all these frequencies, technology and that we didn’t really think about possible long-term causes. That some students and others even made experiments with Wifi signals and other frequencies and found out that some plants die when they are near them for too long (and such things). It was also found out that mobile phone towers and higher chances of sickness and depression (and other illness or problems) are related. But it was probably ignored before or not understood. In the area with the highest amount of frequencies, the rate or chances to get sickness, head ache, depression etc. was higher than in other regions. The range between human and tower was not a good measurement, since some people in the same range felt pretty good, while others felt pretty bad. At least in this study I am writing about, they found out that it was related to the way in which the waves / frequencies were sent. Since they were sent from just a few points around the tower, only those in the “center” regions, where the frequencies were directly sent and therefor had the highest impact, were having higher rates and therefor chances to get illness. While the others had lower chances and rates, since the waves weren’t as strong where they lived, although all were about the same distance away from the tower.
Good that people want to install 5G in cities, so depression, cancer and other sickness can grow instantly. Very well played humans… very well… what the hell…
For example, if instead of wifi, you would use cables, like in the “old” days (just a few decades ago), a lot of problems might not even be there (anymore) or stop existing. Good that humans are very smart and think a lot, but feel nothing or surpress their natural feelings. Especially natural warn signals like pain.
I learned in school, that pain is a natural warn signal to tell you that something is not alright and you should find out what it is. A lot of the time these are simple things like: hunger, an arrow in your knee (wounds), baby wants out (birth), etc.
The problem with technology is, that usually humans are not meant to notice nor understand technology based problems. And also our “warning system” is not really that advanced in most cases or at least usually. It is meant to find wounds and figure out basic needs and such things, so it can’t do much more than signalling pain where the problem is (or seems to be), according to the nerves and other natural “sensors”.
Next time your whole body is in pain or cold and you don’t know why, well, maybe it is “gaslightning” or maybe, it is your brain or nervous system trying to tell you, that you should get the hell out of whereever you are, since it doesn’t know what it is and how to “fix” it, just that it is very, very deadly, dangerous and you better get out of there untill you know what it is. Or hopefully don’t have to, since you escaped it.
What I am trying to say is, that your body might sense frequences which aren’t good for it or also people who might be “infected” by them or something like it.
This is not about “Technology is bad”, it is more about, maybe we should have first waited a little and listen to some scientists and students who tried to warn us.
So to sum it up again.
- The human thinks that the human has to handle problems like over-population and such things, while it makes no sense (in the context of nature and its possible and very likely natural “limits”)
- The way in which humans pushed and used technology is killing us all (all life on earth)
- Technology itself is not bad and accepted by nature, when used and made in a respectful and responsible way
- We can help nature to help itself
- Nature has some limits and tries to find the best solution for all of us
- Choice is a wanted thing, but caused a lot of problems, still it is wanted
- We don’t have much time
- We only got this chance
- If we won’t die anyway, we might live forever through nature
- Nature tries to help and safe those who support and try to help “it”
Any more questions? No? Like usually?
Well… okay quiet “class”. 😀
But since you now know that you can’t really do much wrong, when you are on nature’s side and you are allowed to do anything, we can do this.
And if not, well, then all life on earth is gone and we won’t have to think about trivial problems like money, food consumption and … well, retirement (whatever that is).
Until then, I wish a good weekend and don’t give up your fight!
And maybe think about what really matters, usually the “simple” things, like watching birds fly and walking through a wonderful nature.
And who already told me about some of this, when I was younger? – Stargate, X-files, cartoons, teachers, scientists, …