The rules of civilization serve a dual purpose; they both enable us to rise to our best selves and constrain our more destructive tendencies. On one hand, these rules provide a framework for cooperation, compassion, and progress, facilitating social harmony and innovation. On the other hand, they can also feel restrictive, particularly for those who may see them as limiting personal freedom or expression. Ultimately, the effectiveness of these rules depends on how they are enacted and embraced by individuals within the society.
Science is a tool. Good or bad depends on the intention of the users. Assuming the users are all good guys, science enable mankind to understand nature better. So we can protect ourselves, manage the resources, harness mother nature's recipe and have fun as we go along...
It's our nature to destroy ourselves.
Nature is inanimate!
He doesn't really have one
Nature versus civilization
Edward Oler has written: 'Complementary triad cycles of nature' -- subject(s): Philosophy of nature, Science and civilization
because weed is waht made there eyes squint
We are gorillasAnother answerWe are human beings. Own natural man "is" animal like in nature though and we have to learn how to control ourselves.
Civilization and industry -Apex
Donald John Pierce has written: 'The nature of history' -- subject(s): History, Philosophy 'Some aspects of civilization' -- subject(s): Civilization, Philosophy
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the process of civilization and the Enlightenment had corrupted human nature. He believed that society imposed artificial constraints on individuals, leading to inequality, greed, and selfishness, which he believed were not inherent in human beings in their natural state.
Restaurants certainly compete with each other for business. There are many restaurants that serve the same style of food, and these restaurants are often in competition.