>This is an interesting, and common, angle on nature: anthropomorphization
>coupled with linguistic personification. Within a Darwinian framework I find
>it hard to consider the workings of nature as a gestalt entity;
I don't consider it a entity the concept is merely metaphorical.
>rather, it
>seems to be a series of interacting events in which there is no prior
>assessment of effect, no plan. So 'nature' doesn't look at a problem in any
>direction at all.
But it does shape life to the laws of physics so the laws shape the physical
structure of the organisms. There are organisms we could never possibly
grasp how they existed until we ran into them face to face. This I believe
will be true of any life we discover out in space because the humanoid shape
is a direct molded evolution of tree swinging primates.
>If 'nature' could be personified, since 'she' does not care about effect,
>'her' approach to engineering and it's environmental effects seems
>remarkable similar to that of humankind in many ways: do something and see
>what happens, it'll sort itself out in to a balance point after a while.
Yeah but nature knows everything already, we must learn everything first.