nature vs. chaos

thinky time again. dont worry, fun photo blog coming soon.

there is a debate in ecology, and im sure other disciplines as well, over whether the universe is governed by harmony or chaos. we have this old idea that if nature is just left alone, it will fall into a sort of balanced state, where creatures eat each other and reproduce in harmony (thanks rousseau). humans are sort of a wild card in this--perspectives differ on whether humans ONCE belonged in nature and lived in harmony, but have since lost that ability for one reason or another. or humans are simply regarded as a sort of fly in the ointment altogether, screwing up whatever we touch.

the other perspective is the idea of chaos. that nature and the universe have always been ruled by cataclysm and unpredictability--huge disasters have happened to the earth (and the rest of the universe) time and time again, and there is no reason to expect that they would stop.

the first perspective is nice because hey, it gives us hope. if only we could a) return to our lost eden (eden itself, the medieval period, the americas before white folks arrived, whatever) or b) establish the perfect society finally (via science, philosophy, religion, pish posh). whatever it is, perfection and harmony can exist and we can reach it, if we can only find the path! something to strive for.

the downsides of this of course are that every disaster engenders what, guilt and existential crisis? old timers thought every earthquake or famine was a punishment from god. new timers find pollution and massive extinction to be a moral issue as well (i tend to agree most of the time). however both believed that if ONLY humans could be better somehow, achieve that harmony/righteousness that is just floating out of reach, things would improve. but we haven't, we are rotten and awful and now we are suffering. why god, why? bring on the despair.

chaos theory (using that term VERY loosely) on the other hand absolves you of responsibility, which can be kind of nice. so what, people are causing the 6th great extinction? well, there were five others and guess what, nobody blames the ASTEROID. geez. and life went on. there is a kind of arrogance in trying to control everything, in assuming we can make life what we want it to be if only we try. of course the downsides to this are obvious, they're the same as the upsides. lack of responsibility? well, this burrito is delicious but it is filling. chuck.

i dont know of course. i am wondering if maybe the universe is chaotic but balanced within a much larger sense, eg yeah an asteroid can kill 4/5 of all the life on earth, but can't we accept destruction and death into our concept of balance? and can't we accept our individual responsibility to fix things without being overwhelmed by the possibility that it might not work? generally i think no, not us westerners. but it would probably be a good idea.

and done.