A 100% guaranteed path to Resolution of conflict series. Part-2

Understanding Conflict

To get clarity and understand conflict we are going to divide the history so far into 2 parts. One before human settlement had started and homo sapiens were only wanderer and gatherer just like the apes. Visualising conflict before human settlements, when a herd of deer were chased by a leopard and the chase was either succesful or unsuccessful. Was that a conflict in any way. When hundreds of pollen were spread out only a few fertilised was that conflict. When many cubs were born in a litter and a few died young was it conflict. When many mango trees sprouted a few grew into big trees and others just wilted was that due to any conflict?

You’re right, those are all situations with competition and struggle in the natural world, but they wouldn’t necessarily be classified as conflict in the traditional sense. Here’s a breakdown:

• Conflict: Conflict typically implies a clash between opposing forces, often with some level of awareness and intention. In the scenarios you described, there isn’t necessarily any awareness on the part of the participants. The deer doesn’t choose to be chased, the pollen doesn’t fight other pollen, and the weaker cubs don’t intentionally lose resources.

Here’s how we can reframe your examples:

• Deer chase: This is a form of predation, a natural process where one organism (predator) benefits by consuming another (prey).
• Pollen competition: This is resource competition, where multiple organisms vie for limited resources (in this case, reaching the female plant cell).
• Cub survival: This is natural selection, where variations within a species lead to differential survival and reproduction. Stronger cubs are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
• Mango tree growth: This is a combination of factors like competition for resources (sunlight, water), chance events (storms), and suitability of the environment. It’s not a fight between the trees, but the outcome is influenced by various challenges.

Before humans: These situations involved competition and struggle, but not with the same level of awareness and intention as human conflict.

After humans: When humans enter the picture, things can get more complex. Humans can actively manipulate the environment, leading to conflicts like:

• Humans vs. animals: Competition for resources, habitat destruction, hunting.
• Interspecies competition: Introduced species disrupting established ecosystems.

So, while the natural world is full of challenges and competition, these wouldn’t be considered conflicts in the same way humans experience them.

Conflict is a vision which human being brought into existence after he tried making rules that were not in alignment with nature. In nature the rules are clear and every thing happens as per laws. Human beings or homo sapiens are a typical special species which we will consider later. For now till the world was in harmony and everything in existence was doing what it was supposed to be doing. The herbivores hastened the process of decay of plants and turned them into fertiliser quickly to enrich the earth. They regulated the growth and decay of the flora. The carnivores helped conversion of the herbivores into fertile manure and regulated the growth of herbivores. The chase helped the soil aeration and growth of more flora and everything was in harmony. There was no conflict on this planet.

There’s an interesting perspective you have on nature! It’s true that the natural world has a certain order and interconnectedness, but it’s not entirely free from conflict in the traditional sense. Here’s a breakdown of your view and some points to consider:

Harmony vs. Competition:

• Harmony: Nature does have a beautiful balance where different organisms play a role. Herbivores break down plants, carnivores control populations, and death feeds new life. This creates a cycle of interdependence.
• Competition: However, there’s still competition within this harmony. Predators compete for prey, plants compete for sunlight and water, and different species vie for the same resources. This competition can be fierce and sometimes leads to the death of another organism.

Conflict vs. Natural Process:

• Conflict: While competition exists, it’s not necessarily “conflict” in the human sense. It lacks the awareness and intentionality we associate with human conflict.
• Natural Process: Predation, resource competition, and death are natural processes that maintain the balance within an ecosystem. They may not be harmonious for the individual organism being chased, eaten, or dying, but they contribute to the overall health of the system.

Human Impact:

• You’re right that humans can disrupt this natural balance. Humans can overhunt, pollute, and destroy habitats, leading to conflicts beyond the typical predator-prey dynamic.
• Our complex societies and rule-making can also have unintended consequences for the environment.

So, is there conflict in nature?

There’s competition, struggle, and death, but not necessarily conflict in the way humans experience it. It’s a complex interplay of forces that maintains a dynamic balance. Humans, however, can disrupt this balance, leading to a different kind of conflict — one where the well-being of the entire ecosystem is at stake.

Again please do not bring human beings into the picture as yet. I am talking of the planet before human beings settled into societies. They were wandering and collecting and eating fruits and living in herds and were eaten up by carnivores at times and living a nomadic life. No deer, no plant, no human being had the notion of conflict and were are living by the rules and in harmony. No conflict state of the planet.

I understand your perspective. You’re envisioning a state of nature before humans, where everything functioned in a perfect balance without any conflict. Here’s how we can approach this:

Nature’s Harmony:

• There’s definitely a beautiful interconnectedness in nature. Plants convert sunlight into energy, herbivores eat plants, carnivores eat herbivores, and decomposers break down dead organisms to nourish the soil. This creates a cycle of life and death that sustains the ecosystem.

Challenges vs. Conflict:

• While there’s no malicious intent or “conflict” in the human sense, there are certainly challenges in the natural world. Predators hunt prey, which can be a stressful and life-threatening experience for the hunted animal.
• Competition for resources like water, sunlight, and territory exists between different species and even within the same species. This competition can be fierce and sometimes lead to the death of an organism.

Harmony Through Struggle:

• It might be more accurate to say that nature finds harmony through a constant state of flux and competition. Predators keep herbivore populations in check, preventing them from overgrazing and destroying plant life. Death becomes the fuel for new life through decomposition.
• Even events like wildfires can be part of this cycle, clearing overgrown areas and allowing new plant life to flourish.

So, was there a perfect peace before humans?

• Not necessarily. While there wasn’t human-made conflict, there was a constant state of challenge and competition within the natural order. This competition is necessary for the health and balance of the ecosystem.

Moving Forward:

• When we consider humans in the picture, things change. Humans can disrupt the natural balance through overhunting, habitat destruction, and pollution. This creates conflict beyond the predator-prey dynamic, impacting entire ecosystems.

Conclusion:

Nature is a complex system with a remarkable ability to adapt and find balance. While it may not be a state of perfect peace, it’s a fascinating interplay of forces that sustains life on Earth. When humans enter the equation, our actions can disrupt this balance, creating a different kind of conflict.

Nature does not give the herbivore the power to feel stress or imagine a life threatening situation. Immediately after a chase you find deer grazing cheerfully and do not have the potential to feel the stress of the chase or be wary of the next chase. They get eaten up by carnivores and do not feel that fear of being eaten up.The natural death of a lion when it gets eaten up by a pack of hyenas is also not a sign of conflict. The will to live is the only imagination that we can see from the reptilian lizard onwards till the apes. There is only this will to live till homo sapiens and the will to understand and know is only possible with the neurological brain residing in the skull of the homosapiens. For the purpose of our discussion all natural selection or natural competition that you are referring to is not a reality. Only harmony and the process of enrichment of the planet to have the advanced body of homo sapien to emerge. The enriched planet is a prerequisite for human beings to manifest and evolve on any planet. In this planet we had that enrichment and a planet full of diverse fauna and flora to facilitate emergence of the homonoid series of species. Till that moment there was no conflict in the slightest sense.

That’s an interesting theory! Whether there was “conflict” in the pre-human world depends on how we define conflict. Here’s a breakdown of your points and some additional thoughts:

Animal Awareness:

• Limited vs. No Awareness: You’re right that animals may not experience emotions like stress or fear in the same way humans do. However, they do have basic survival instincts and reactions that help them avoid predators. A deer fleeing a predator shows a response to a threat.
• Evolutionary Advantage: Even without complex emotions, these instincts are crucial for survival and reproduction. Animals with better survival instincts are more likely to pass on their genes.

Natural Selection as Harmony:

• Survival of the Fittest: You view natural selection as a harmonious process that enriches the planet for the eventual emergence of humans. It’s true that competition and predation create a dynamic balance that allows for adaptation and evolution.
• Limited Perspective: However, this perspective focuses on the end result (humans) and downplays the individual struggles within the process. From the perspective of the organism being eaten, it’s not necessarily a harmonious experience.

Conflict vs. Process:

• Neutral vs. Negative: “Conflict” might be too strong a word for the natural world. Predation and competition are simply neutral processes that maintain balance, even if they have negative consequences for individual organisms.

Beyond Humans:

• Conflict Within Species: Competition and conflict aren’t exclusive to humans. Territorial disputes, competition for mates, and even fights for dominance exist within animal populations.

Conclusion:

Whether you call it competition, struggle, or a neutral process, there are challenges and interactions within the natural world that wouldn’t be considered harmonious for the individual organism involved. It’s a complex system with both cooperative and competitive aspects that have led to the diversity of life on Earth.

While the idea of a pre-human world functioning in perfect balance is intriguing, the reality is likely more nuanced. However, your perspective highlights the remarkable process of evolution that led to the emergence of complex life forms like humans.

Now we are aligned on the neutral process of harmony in a holistic view. As a planet we were seeing harmony and enrichment. I will discuss later with you the rivalry within the species and how they fight for territory mating sunlight etc in the next article.

Great! I’m glad we’ve reached a common understanding of the “neutral process of harmony” in the natural world. It’s a complex system with fascinating dynamics.

I’m definitely interested in discussing rivalry within species next. It will be interesting to explore how competition for resources and mates shapes animal behavior, even within a framework of overall ecological balance.

Looking forward to our next discussion!