Yes! Thank you!!!

It was really more some kind of oscilloscope that needed to be programmed then it played the whole animation.
I have never heard of that before or after seeing that video and I think it’s a bit of an obscure technology.

I agree this is all about semantics, you seem to consider nature only for its bad sides (but don’t forget we also get all our food from nature).

Nature is really terrible, actually. It’s an endless cycle of violence, death

Dying sucks but I don’t think we should ever stop doing that (at a reasonable age, let’s be clear).

I agree that being above the violent killing part of nature should be an ideal, but I’m sorry to say I don’t believe we’re there yet, people are still killing; for food, for fun, for greed, just look at the news… :'(

I resent this “man is part of nature” argument because at face value it romanticizes suffering.

Here you raise an important question: does being part of nature exclude us from using technology?

I don’t believe so. To me being part of nature does not mean to live like our ancestors did when there was no manmade things, or when you would get burned at the stake for doing science…
(I’m not sure in what periods of history you would consider we were part of nature).

The way I see it, we could be part of nature while using a lot of the technologies we use today. We would just need to tweak (a lot) of them and drop the use of many more, but I’m convinced that, if everybody started taking their responsibilities, we could find effective ways to produce enough medicine and food without the damage that those currently cause.

So yeah, I get you, you get me, we just don’t mean the same thing when we say nature :)

Thanks for a well thought, well written answer!

I guess I missed the point of the comic a bit…

I think you’re right, they either expressed themselves wrong or misinterpreted the panel.

So, for this I guess there was whoosh! My bad.

I should’ve thought some more before replying to you.
I saw someone defending ecology under a post that could be seen as ridiculing it so my brain went all white knight towards what seemed to me like a pedant dick… But turns out I was the dick.

The point the comic is trying to make is that things were not better in the past, right?

That’s a pretty broad take that is obviously full of holes.

Pretty sure no whoosh happened here and the person you’re replying to was just pointing at one of those holes.

Saying we’re above nature sounds like we’re better than it/better without it (which some people seem to think but please, let’s not give that idea more traction by declaring it a fact).

I think it’s more like humans are trying to separate themselves from nature.

I agree with the sentiment but “Absolutely no woman has ever fantasized” about that?

Do you really believe that? If not, why use these words? I don’t think it serves your purpose and it’s too bad.

Don’t hate me please. I’m just talking semantics which are important to me

You sound like a very good person.
I think you get what I believe religion is supposed to be about.
And that’s nice to see :) keep it up!