User Tag List

View Poll Results: Which is more appealing to you?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Technology

    14 20.59%
  • Nature

    54 79.41%
First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 115

  1. #91
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    There's a simple reason why nature is often considered more beautiful than man-made artifacts; citing Gaudi, the famous spanish architect: "Straight lines don't exist in natural settings". Oftentimes, humans forget about curves, because it's easier (conceptually: it might actually be technically harder) to create something out of straight lines, since it requires a lower amount of computational power.
    But how about the lovely close-to-enough conic-section orbits of planets around stars? I find this correspondence between maths and the world stunningly beautiful. And these conic sections aren't necessarily straight, by the way.
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  2. #92
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    I'm allergic to everything in nature.
    ...including yourself, since you're part of nature
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  3. #93
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    In my mind I don't think there's a clear winner. Both can be beautiful. Both can be ugly. Both have their appealing and unappealing aspects.

    Technology can be beautiful. Buildings can be architecturally beautiful. The beautiful music we listen to or the art we see has likely been aided by technology. Technology can be awe-inspiring just like nature can. Take the flash drive for example. The flash drive may not be beautiful in the literal sense of the word but it amazes me how much memory that little thing can store- the memory of what would be equivalent to multiple computers not so long ago. I also find it amazing how much rapid progress is being made in that area, computers are getting faster and faster and capable of storing more and more. It never ceases to amaze me.

    Technology can also be ugly. Some buildings are ugly to look at. Technology can destroy the beauty of nature. "Paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

    Technology is appealing because it adds to our entertainment options and have made so many tasks easier and more efficient. Technology has greatly increased our life expentancies and our standards of living.

    Technology is unappealing because it packs a great deal of destructive potential when used improperly. Technology can be overused to the point where we ignore some of the basic pleasures of life. For example, we sit in front of the computer all day and don't interact enough in person or don't get out in nature enough. We don't get enough exercise because we are glued to the TV set.

    Nature is beautiful in many ways. Sunsets, mountains, oceans, snowflakes, stars in the sky, etc. If you believe in evolution like I do, there's a sense of awe looking at a living thing and thinking about the process that led to living thing being the way it is. Sense of awe may not be the same as beauty but I think they're kind of related. If you believe in creation, there's still a sense of awe about how God created such beauty and wonder. Some animals and some plants are simply beautiful to look at.

    Nature can also be ugly. There are some animals and plants that I find ugly. Some insects for example, gross me out. Some rock formations are kind of ugly. Then again, some rock formations are beautiful. The point is, just because its nature doesn't necessarily make it beautiful.

    The downside of nature is that its inherently impersonal and unforgiving. Mother nature doesn't care how the next blizzard is going to stop people from going where they need to go. Worse yet, mother nature doesn't care about how the next earthquake can destroy numerous buildings and take several lives with it. Natural disasters in a sense can inspire a sense of wonder when you look at their sheer power but they are capable of destroying so much and taking so many lives with it.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  4. #94
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Nature, no question. I'm not saying I want to live without technology, but usually I don't find it beautiful. It can be, but usually it is more functional than beautiful, and that is okay.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  5. #95
    From the Undertow CuriousFeeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    3,456

    Default

    Nature is more aesthetically pleasing to me, but technology is appealing to me from an intellectual standpoint. But, there are also some mechanisms in nature that may not necessarily be beautiful either, such as predator/prey relationships, competition between species, and it seems a bit cold. But for the most part, I find the intricacies of how nature works as a system, and the structures created in various species of organisms, the multi-colored and multiple forms of organisms and the ecosystems they live in beautiful at most. I also think the intricacies of technology are beautiful too. As a musician, I find the innovations in developing keyboard instruments, the types of sounds created from the advancement of synthesis technology, quite beautiful as well. Take a simple flow of electrons, send it through an elaborate circuitry system in a synthesizer, and create a technicolor palette of sounds... now that's really beautiful. And it's even more beautiful when the sounds used in said technology are composed in natural sounding music that brings everything around you to life.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Johari/Nohari

    “Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings -- always darker, emptier and simpler.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche




  6. #96

    Default

    I gravitate towards technology, but I escape to nature. I love them both because I need them both.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  7. #97
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    I am sorry but to me those two are pretty much the same thing in my book.


    The reason why I think this is because it is more than obvious that entire humanity is quite egocentrical. While on the other hand they don't realize that they are just a tiny piece of the puzzle know as reality. Or that everything they make still obeys general rules knows are "laws of physics" in 100% of cases. Or perhaps they simply don't support the idea that they are made of same elements as their environment is.


    Also you can expand this concept on the big picture as well. For example the modern science says that the universe will probably end in a big crunch or expand forever. However that does not mean that the life as a phenomenon can't be considered as one of key forces/elements/ingredients of the universe/reality. I mean it could turn up that life can be considerd to be element like gravity when you look at the big picture .

    So far the overall power of life in the universe is pretty negligible but that could change on the long run. Perhaps it could change that much that the life through technology will manage to interact with other forces that make reality what it is and create a stable universe. It is obvious that the so called "force of life" will not take control anytime soon but after billions of billions of years ..... who can say?


    However if this happens it is unavoidable that this "force of life" passes through the stage that looks like a human civiliization. Since that is simply chemically unavoidable in this chain of devopment that is going from simple to complex.


    So however you turn things when you watch the big picture you will end up with nature = technology.
    What makes this question kinda pointless or at least asked in wrong way.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am sorry but to me those two are pretty much the same thing in my book.


    The reason why I think this is because it is more than obvious that entire humanity is quite egocentrical. While on the other hand they don't realize that they are just a tiny piece of the puzzle know as reality. Or that everything they make still obeys general rules knows are "laws of physics" in 100% of cases. Or perhaps they simply don't support the idea that they are made of same elements as their environment is.


    Also you can expand this concept on the big picture as well. For example the modern science says that the universe will probably end in a big crunch or expand forever. However that does not mean that the life as a phenomenon can't be considered as one of key forces/elements/ingredients of the universe/reality. I mean it could turn up that life can be considerd to be element like gravity when you look at the big picture .

    So far the overall power of life in the universe is pretty negligible but that could change on the long run. Perhaps it could change that much that the life through technology will manage to interact with other forces that make reality what it is and create a stable universe. It is obvious that the so called "force of life" will not take control anytime soon but after billions of billions of years ..... who can say?


    However if this happens it is unavoidable that this "force of life" passes through the stage that looks like a human civiliization. Since that is simply chemically unavoidable in this chain of devopment that is going from simple to complex.


    So however you turn things when you watch the big picture you will end up with nature = technology.
    What makes this question kinda pointless or at least asked in wrong way.
    In response: perhaps a better question could be "What aspects of the universe [and that includes people's activities] do you find aesthetically pleasing?" That way, we know that we're a tiny part of the whole shebang!
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  9. #99
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I've noticed that most people think that Nature is more beautiful, but I don't really understand why. I'll try to explain why I think things made by people actually make me feel more of a sense of harmony, resonance, and tranquility.

    Things that have been created have a certain human touch to them. You can tell that another, fellow human being considered how it was to be made, and was involved in it's construction. You know there was a purpose in mind for it, that it was created by people for people. Such things tend to have a clear design, a more understandable and symmetrical form. You can get an idea of what the person who created it might have been like, what might have been important to them.

    I'm not saying that there's nothing at all beautiful in nature, but the overall feel of it is chaos. Things simply exist in it for their own sake, and don't have anything to do with people. It reminds you that there's a whole, impersonal world out there that's changing on whim, completely indifferent/hostile to what people want/need. The things you observe in it don't usually have as clear and consistent a pattern, they aren't controlled, and feel kind of alien.

    So... does anyone agree?
    No. Sorry.
    I do not see anything progressive in technology.
    What is it, beyond an article of destruction? Nothing.

    Technology is the worst of evils. It has created all our problems.
    Weapons: Perpetual warfare in Africa and Central Asia. Poverty and annihilation of tribes. Mass murder and genocide.
    The roads have devastated our landscape for good.
    Oil industry, car industry and chemical plants polluted tap water and air.

    Why they hated Chaplin? He was driven out of the country.
    Modern Times.
    He told the truth. Of Henry, and the others.

  10. #100
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Wow. I didn't read the thread completely yet, but I want to respond. I like nature. I studied biology in school, more from the nature side, and I currently work on a farm. I have an agriculture profession. Thus, I do like nature.

    However, technology is good in many ways.


    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    No. Sorry.
    I do not see anything progressive in technology.
    What is it, beyond an article of destruction? Nothing.
    It, for example, provides you the opportunity to express your opinion via the internet. It made your food possible. Do you use lights, or do you remain in the dark all the time? Do you drive or use public transportation? Do you use a toilet? If not, then what do you do with your waste?

    Technology is the worst of evils. It has created all our problems.
    This is false. It is a human problem.

    Weapons: Perpetual warfare in Africa and Central Asia. Poverty and annihilation of tribes. Mass murder and genocide.
    In Rwanda in the 90's, about one million people were killed in three days by gangs of men with a machete in one hand and club in the other. (Fairly low tech.) This hatred is not a result of the technology in any way. This resulted from an artificially created prejudice. People (not technology or robots)...people!...measured other people (literally), and said, "Let's make the taller people, with lighter skin and narrower noses and put them in charge. They are obviously smarter." People did that.

    The roads have devastated our landscape for good.
    Oil industry, car industry and chemical plants polluted tap water and air
    This is fairly true. We need a better solution, which will probably come from technology. The cause of this problem is not technological either, however. It is because of human greed. This is because humans prefer greed for all the breeding rights it provides. This is a human problem, not a technological one. China, for example, is poisoning it's water at an alarming rate. China is building factories on arable land. The problem is that government officials or anyone in power prefer a certain luxuries, such as a certain kind of car over long term sustainability. This has nothing to do with technological innovation. It is the human problem of delayed gratifications versus benefits right now.



    Edit: I'll probably add more if I read more of the thread.

    For example, having studied biology and aquaculture, I agree with this statement----->

    So however you turn things when you watch the big picture you will end up with nature = technology.
    What makes this question kinda pointless or at least asked in wrong way.
    Processes? Molecules moving across membranes? Nature is fairly technological from a certain point of view!

    Since I didn't read yet, I hope anything I said that's been said is taken as affirmation of the original poster.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-19-2016, 06:55 AM
  2. Which is more empathetic, Fi or Fe?
    By Doctorjuice in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 05-05-2012, 09:44 AM
  3. Hate or Love: Which is more powerful?
    By Anew Leaf in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 08:50 PM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-21-2010, 05:51 PM
  5. Falsification or comparison, which is more suitable?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 01:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO