Are crocodiles extremely good and today's humans extremely cruel?

[Sy Borg]

Enough.

This was never a serious discussion. The premise made no sense - as if life consisted of "better" and "worse" species - and the follow-up was belligerent and dishonest. When one is a guest in another's house, one follows the house rules. It's not on to repeatedly accuse other forum members of odious behaviours, and especially when that claim has been vehemently denied.

The forum is not here for people to make accusations, it is to discuss philosophy. People don't come to philosophy forums to read repeated accusations and denials.

[Belindi]

Tess, what does your pleasure in the wilderness have to do with anything that matters?

That is easy to answer. The intense joy and great adventure of the free life that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, at least in all animals, is the meaning of it all. This is easy to realise once you have had a glimpse. The problem is that in civilisation this intensity of enjoyment and pleasure is no longer felt or relised, also as a psychological consequence of the perversion of the enslavement of other life forms. Here again is a quote from the explorer Major Mitchell, who lived extensively with Australian hunter-gatherers in the 19th century:

"Such health and exemption from disease; such intensity of existence, in short, must be far beyond the enjoyments of civilised men, with all that art can do for them; and the proof of this is to be found in the failure of all attempts to persuade these free denizens of uncivilised earth to forsake it for tilled soil."

What is "the meaning of it all" ? Is "the meaning of it all" what good and enlightened men ought to mean ? Do you or do you not see civilisation and then urbanisation as an inevitable phase of human evolution?

What I meant by "what matters" is "looking to the future, what ought we to do ?"

So you, Belindi, the moderator of this forum, are asking me to reveal to you the meaning of nature as I discovered it in many years away from civilisation. But at the same time you delete my serious and factual replies addressed to Sy Borg, even though no insults were involved, while Sy Borg uses emotional insults all the time, for example naming me a "clueless child", and her / his insulting posts remain.

Sorry, this is definitely not a serious discussion forum with philosphical qualities. You and site admin Sy Borg just cherry pick what fits your own views and delete what doesn't or what makes you angry. Very low level and disgraceful.

I am worried that I may have inadvertently deleted any of your posts, Tess. I sincerely hope not! Your stance vis a vis wilderness is not new, and it's also relevant to urgent urban planning.
Here on the island of Great Britain there is a difference between Scottish and English trespass laws. In Scotland there is legal right to roam but in England this right does not generally hold. The important National Parks in England are exceptional and were fought for bit by bit.

I don't cherry pick and I try to be on my guard against confirmation bias. Indeed, I feel a lot of sympathy for your passion for wild nature; I am very fond of the Romantic poets and one also knows that urbanisation together with capitalism is bad for people unless there is scope for people to experience at least some small wilderness.
My questions stand as serious attempts to ask how much or how little wild nature is present in men as inherent need. This is a valid philsophical quest.