-- *Mar*Below is an *edited, clarified, and stylistically improved version* of your essay, followed by *an added section with my own views*, clearly marked as an attachment-style addition. I have preserved your philosophical voice while improving flow, precision, and readability, and gently correcting scientific and conceptual phrasing without changing your intent. ------------------------------ *What We Are Losing*
Our great-great-great ancestor, the ape, could jump, hop, run, and climb—every limb fully under his command and control. Could he even imagine the loss of these basic faculties without perceiving it as a great misfortune? Living freely in lush, thick, and vibrant nature, he had no need for an over-analyzing, dissecting, or fretting mind. Nature cared for him—communicating through reassuring sounds and scents. His needs were met instantly, and concepts such as worry and anxiety simply did not exist. Even when chased or killed by a predator, fear as we understand it today was not experienced. Fear is never truly felt when an unwanted event is actually occurring; it arises either in anticipation of a possible future event or as memory after the event has passed. It is not present in the immediacy of action itself. Nature continuously sustained him—fresh air, endless trees to leap between, abundant flora and fauna—where every life form existed in emotional and ecological complementarity. Nature was his *macro anatomy*. Death itself was experienced as healthy and natural, without fear or worry. In this macro anatomy, death was not the end of life but part of growth—almost a silent companion rather than an enemy. Fight-or-flight decisions occurred without hesitation, shame, fear, or the need for justification. There was no concept of cowardice. There was no pressure to demonstrate intelligence, brilliance, courage, or any of the glorified traits of modern society. There were no examinations, no grades, and no external validations. Perhaps nature enabled this healthy and joyful existence by accepting him fully as a part of itself. After all, at the most fundamental level, we are composed of atoms—protons carrying positive charge and electrons carrying negative charge—making us participants in an active electromagnetic universe. Perhaps quantum entanglement enables a deeper cosmic connection. Perhaps, in some sense, we are still participating in the Big Bang itself. We can experience this participation and connection with nature only when we do not avoid nature through excessive reliance on technology. Perhaps there was no fear of death at all when we lived as macro beings. Deaths occur continuously within us even now; we are composed of bacteria whose lifespans last only minutes. Just as bacteria participate in our bodies, we participate in the larger body of nature. Today, however, we cannot live without technology. We have lost nearly all the natural endowments that our ape ancestors possessed. There appears to be an inverse relationship between the growth of technology and the decline of our natural faculties. Technology is not only destroying nature; it is destroying us—because we *are* nature. Is there any greater illusion than believing we must stand outside nature to observe it scientifically? Is such detachment even possible when hundreds of visible and invisible connections bind us to the natural world? Because total disconnection is impossible, we have instead surrendered ourselves entirely to technology, allowing our natural faculties to freeze and atrophy. Universities increasingly promote technological advancement while accelerating our separation from nature. We must recognize that unchecked technology is eroding the very foundation of life, and that we are approaching the limits of nature’s resilience. Every university must immediately establish a *“Free Nature Park”*—a space without human tampering—as a first step toward reviving both nature and our own innate capacities. *— YM Sarma* ------------------------------ *Attachment: Additional Reflections and Expanded View* While the argument powerfully critiques technological overreach, it may be helpful to clarify that the problem is not technology itself, but *technology without wisdom, restraint, or ecological humility*. Technology arose from human intelligence—an extension of nature, not its enemy. The danger begins when technology replaces direct experience rather than supporting it. Fear, anxiety, and alienation are not merely products of civilization; they arise when humans lose embodied connection—with their bodies, ecosystems, and immediate surroundings. Modern education trains abstraction but neglects sensation. We teach students how to manipulate symbols, but not how to listen to wind, soil, silence, or their own nervous systems. A “Free Nature Park” is therefore not only an ecological intervention but a *psychological and neurological necessity*. Such spaces would serve as living classrooms—where observation precedes theory, presence precedes analysis, and humility precedes control. True progress may lie not in rejecting technology, but in *reintegrating it into a nature-centered worldview*, where technology is a servant, not a substitute for life. Without this rebalancing, humanity risks becoming highly intelligent yet deeply impoverished—clever in machines, but crippled in being. ------------------------------ If you’d like, I can: - Make this more *academic* (journal-style), - Make it *shorter and sharper* for publication, - Or format it as a *PDF-ready attachment* or *conference paper*. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKKcOwNqR1SZys-eJLbh3JPnNJc0xDBAQedTq678E9VGA%40mail.gmail.com.
