Bob:

> When intelligent folks can't agree on "Is nature perfect."  I suspect we're
> not talking the same language.  Please, Tom, Jean-Louis, etc.  What's your
> definiton of "perfect" in this context?

"Perfect" would be a sort of Garden of Eden: no suffering (or minimal suffering,
because some animals are dinners for others), no diseases, no parasites,
no injuries, no birth defects, no emotional distress, no envy or jealousy,
all desires fulfilled (no frustrations), etc...

It seems obvious to me that Nature, as complex and marvelous as it might
be, is not perfect at all: animals suffer from viral diseases, from
parasites, from injuries, from harsh weather conditions; members of the same
species fight against each other; there are numerous examples of murderings (of
"husband", children, brothers or sisters, of mothers)...

>..........& "nature", for that matter.

Very difficult to define. We will agree that everything that exists
independently from man is natural. But what part of humans is "artificial",
rather than "natural"? We know that apes can use intelligence, tools,
language; that they are self-conscious, have the sense of past, present and
future...

I don't think we can draw a clear line between "natural" and "artificial",
there are only degrees of artificiality, and certain behaviors (like
reading your e-mail) are more artificial than others (like using simple
tools to prepare food).


Best wishes,