MAN vs NATURE

seribulan

who is the winner?

batman_2007

dah undi..

tapi wa nak tau apa punca lu buat thread ni?
bley elobrate skit..

seribulan

tq...nah pinat...

I was reading a book on graphic organizers...come across this topic...
voila...hence this thread...

Saya akan kata manusia menang tapi kampung tergadai...cam Lebai Malang...
fikir-fikirkanlah...

my-alja

tak tergapai dek akal ku

mardaus

nature ni besar.haiwan,tumbuhan,cuaca,bencana alam tu semuanya part of nature
kalau haiwan buas macam rimau, singa, dubuk, ular tu rasanya manusia dah boleh atasi mereka. malah mereka sudah menjadi tawanan manusia di zoo dan muzium walau tidak semuanya. tapi manusia masih belum dapat menguasai mereka kerana manusia tak faham pun bahasa mereka macam nabi sulaiman, manusia yang memelihara mereka pun ada kalanya di"ngap" oleh kesayangan mereka sendiri dan masih banyak spesies binatang yang ditemui oleh manusia di bumi sahaja pun, apatah lagi di angkasa lepas.
manusia sebenarnya masih kerdil walaupun sudah mendirikan beraneka mercu langit tersergam megah, manusia maih tidak dapat mengubah cuaca sesuka hati mereka. walaupun ada teknologi pembenihan awan dan mencipta bilik salji, pencapaian itu masih di peringkat mikro sahaja. dan nyata sahaja campur tangan manusia dalam mencipta "cuaca" boleh mendatangkan kesan kpeada alam sekitar sendiri lantas mencipta ruang cuaca makro yang lebih tidak selamat. contohnya berapa banyak air-cond yang diperlukan untuk mencipta bilik salji yang akan menjejaskan lapisan ozon.
Yang paling nyata sekali bolehkah ,manusia menghentikan kejadian tsunami daripada melenyapkan sebilangan besar umat Acheh? bolehkah manusia menghentikan letusan gunung berapi yang memumiakan penduduk Pompeii malah mampukah manusia dengan Smart Tunnel melenyapkan terus banjir kilat daripada menimpa bumi     kotaraya?
Sesungguhnya ilmu manusia hanya setitis daripada lautan yang terbentang luas. Insafilah...

Agul

Nature will win everytime.

The earth have experienced much greater stress than this. Poisonous atmosphere, extreme flooding, ice age, extreme temperature, stellar attack (as if meteor and such) which are stronger than all the nuclear missiles combined, plate movement That changes the face of planet earth, great quakes, solar flare, extreme wheather condition etc...

And yet the earth牋still stands proud...

What threat that men could爃onestly爌resent to nature? Pollution? Ozone depletion? Men will die first before serious harm comes to mother earth.

We don't protect the earth, we don't save the earth. Such arrogance. We're just protecting our self interest, our survival.

[ Last edited by  Agul at 11-2-2008 09:51 PM ]

sosimple

alam terjadi dulu baru manusia... sbb tuh manusia x boleh hidup tnpa alam... tp alam ttp hidup tnpa manusia... malah mungkin akan lbh subur lg.... sbnrnya kita nih musuh alam... tp alam terima jer kiter masih sudi berbakti dgn kita... tahan menerima tujahan2 kejam dr kiter....

baeknyer alam kita..........

tp kita ........

batman_2007

Originally posted by seribulan at 11-2-2008 01:15 PM
tq...nah pinat...

I was reading a book on graphic organizers...come across this topic...
voila...hence this thread...
Saya akan kata manusia menang tapi kampung tergadai...cam Lebai Malang ...

tenkiu2..
ermm tapi nature ni besar dude,,
kalau manusia againts nature dr segi fizikal memang kalah..
kalau manusia pakai akal pun nk lawan nature..rasanye kalah gak
manusia hanya mampu merancang tapi kuasa Allah yg menentukan..
Allah turunkan bala mcm2 by nature pun ada..
lingkup manusia kena nature

niawafi

4 me..dua2 pentin..
salin bkaitan antara satu sm len..

naden

cik seribulan, apa maksud 'winner' kat sini?

dalam hal man vs nature, rasanya xde sape yg 'menang'..
xkira pihak mana - keputusan akhirnya tetap kemusnahan..
& apakah kemusnahan itu tanda kemenangan bagi satu2 pihak?
kemenangan manusia bererti kemusnahan alam,
& kemenangan alam bererti kemusnahan manusia..

tapi kalau perlu juga memilih - alam tetap akan memenangi manusia
nak amik contoh yg mudah?
manusia boleh mati hanya kerana patukan seekor ular
manusia boleh mati hanya kerana gigitan seekor nyamuk
manusia boleh mati bila disondol/dilanyak oleh seekor lembu (hakikat!)
manusia boleh mati hanya kerana sesuatu yg sekecil kuman/bakteria/virus!!!!
manusia boleh mati ketika berenang di sungai atau di laut..
manusia boleh mati kerana air, api, udara & tanah..
& manusia boleh mati bila dipanah petir..
kemungkinan utk seorang manusia itu mati bila berdepan dgn alam - amat tinggi..
(d'uh! sedangkan berdepan sesama manusia pun kemungkinan tu tinggi gak!)

situasi lain - manusia akan 'menang' bila berdepan dgn satu2 bahagian daripada alam,
tapi alam juga xkan biarkan manusia itu 'menang' begitu sahaja..
sehutan pokok akan mati hanya kerana ditebang oleh manusia,
tapi kesan daripada penebangan sehutan pokok, lebih ramai manusia akan mati -
mungkin kerana tanah runtuh.. atau mungkin kerana banjir..
sungai & isinya akan mati bila setong bahan beracun/toksik yg dibuang ke dalamnya,
tapi manusia juga akan mati bilamana ia memerlukan air & isi daripada sungai itu..
belum dikira lagi bila manusia merosakkan satu2 ekosistem alam..
kesannya - xkira bagaimana - manusia tetap akan 'kalah' juga..

itu baru contoh2 kecil 'pertarungan' - belum kira bencana2 yg lebih berat & besar..
(contoh : gunung berapi, tsunami, kemarau, banjir, wabak penyakit, ribut taufan, etc)
berapa banyak tamadun manusia yang musnah kerana alam?
dan berapa banyak pula tamadun manusia yg musnah kerana manusia itu sendiri?
alam xkan suka2 nak hukum manusia camtu aje..
mesti ada sebab & alasan.. & rasanya ia kerana manusia jugak..
papepun tindakan manusia - kalau masih xmahu memelihara/memulihara alam & isinya,
manusia tetap akan rebah & hancur.. kerana tangan & tindakan sendiri..

manusia akan terus melakukan kerosakan di muka bumi (+di langit)
tapi 'menang'kah manusia? tidak..
manusia xkan menang against nature..
manusia xkan boleh diclaim sebagai 'pemenang'..
ia hanya boleh diclaim sebagai 'survivor'..
& eventho manusia itu survive, ia masih perlu bergantung kepada alam..
untuk air, udara, makanan, etc..

adakah alam boleh stand alone tanpa manusia?
kalau camtu.. untuk apa Tuhan mencipta & menurunkan manusia ke dunia ni?
& adakah alam yg musnah/dimusnah/memusnahkan itu adalah pemenang?
rasanya tidak.. sbb kesudahannya tetap kemusnahan..

so.. apa makna 'winner' di sini?

seribulan

winner, in an ironically way sebenarnya...for me la...

wink*wink*winner...got it...

up to ur interpretation actually...sometimes a question post
does not need a thorough digestion...this is not exam question ma...

Agul

Sebab tu saya kecilkan skop.

daripada seluruh alam kepada bumi semata2...

Macam man bertarung pun, maunisa masih akan kalah.

Hutan musnah, bumi mungkin jadi padang pasir, penuh dgn gas beracun.
Tapi bukankah semua keadaan ni dan yang lebih teruk lagi pernah dialami oleh bumi sebelum ni?

Keadaan macam tu tak sesuai dengan kehidupan manusia. Wbgmanapun dari sudut atau perspektif bumi itu sendiri ia bukannya sesuatu yang teruk ataupun keburukan.

Cuma sebuah fasa yang berlalu...

naden

sorry sbb terlalu byk yg difikirkan & dituliskan - elaborate sampai (mungkin) lari tajuk..
dah terbiasa fikir+tulis mcm tu.. so saya minta maaf.. kalau ada yg kurang senang..
yeah.. ni bukannya soalan exam.. watpe nak serius & fikirkan sgt, huh?

terima kasih mod agul & mod seribulan - utk ruang & peluang yg diberikan..
& sorry 4 everything.. tq..

Agul

No. It's okay to expand.

I like that post, personally.

Bagi saya permikiran itu sebenarnya adalah satu perkembangan.

A thought that comes to mind, will bring us to another thought, and so on, and on...

Every thought that we have necessitates other thoughts.

Kalau kita hentikan 'keretapi pemikiran' , nanti dia punya 'flow' rosak..

ajinomotonosuga

Man* is part of nature , so macam mana man vs nature pulak tu?

ada elemen tanah, air, udara dan api..seme ni natural resources so apa maksud lawan nature tu?


atau maksud kalau tsunami datang so manusia boleh tukar power tsunami tu menjana letrik.. macam tu ke?

i dont think itu lawan but to 'harmonise' thru rational thought..macam guna air terjun pusing turbine untuk jana letrik dan kendian manusia buat empangan for hydro letric

kalau di india, taik lembu or cow dung tu, depa mix with tanah skit , buat 'batu bata' bikin rumah, some of it buat bahan api pasal ada gas methane, susu lembu untuk kesihatan penduduk kampung, lembu untuk buruk ploughing the soil, so lembu jadi 'sacred'

lembu pun part of nature , manusia pun part of nature , sebab manusia ada kelebihan faculty thinking so depa jadik boss

atau maksud lawan nature itu dengan contoh 'making rain' by ionising the cloud? creating hurricane , even buat epidemic penyakit macam flu pun any superpower macam Russia or USA buleh iniatiate terhadap musuh depa ..kalau ini maksud nya man vs nature(naturally come by instead of human intervention) i think semua orang akan setuju, human race is DOOMED.

*Man is applicable to both sexes, man and woman in above reference.

pesona1

bergantung kepada keadaan waktu tu... ada masa manusia win, but most of the time, nature la...

teringat lak semasa tsunami dulu. apa teknologi dan kecanggihan pun tak mampu nak menolak datangnya ujian sebegitu besar dari tuhan. mastu baru sedar betama manusia hanya insan yang lemah...

Agul

Man, currently is part of nature though it's not always that way.

Based on studies, man comes to dwell on earth quite recently. So man, at that time is not part of nature. (based on the understanding that we are referring our immediate environment, earth as nature)

So man now exist here, and we become a small part of nature (for a small fraction of time divide by the age of the earth).

Can men exist without nature (suitable living environment)? At this moment, we can't.

Can nature exist without man? Yes, definitely. It used to be that way for a really long time. Of course, the living condition may not be suitable for human being or carbon based life form. Poisonous gas, torrential wheather etc...

As for nature, it doesn't make a difference. It doesn't hurt nature that we destroy the earth. We never destroy or damage the earth, in any way whatsoever. We just make it less habitable for man.

Man colonising the earth do not benefit the earth. Man colonising the earth do not harm the earth. Compared

ajinomotonosuga

Originally posted by Agul at 16-2-2008 02:33 AM
Man, currently is part of nature though it's not always that way.

Based on studies, man comes to dwell on earth quite recently. So man, at that time is not part of nature. (based on the unders ...

nothing is destroyed..everything just taking different form..word such as 'destroyed' merely description to a process

u claimed Man dwell somewhere before come to earth? boleh saya tau Man dwell di mana before datang earth?

samada dari standpoint tak percaya tuhan or percaya ada tuhan , Man is part of nature (being or kene jadi , kejadian)

elaborate the following

" Based on studies, man comes to dwell on earth quite recently. So man,at that time is not part of nature. (based on the understanding that weare referring our immediate environment, earth as nature)

So man now exist here, and we become a small part of nature (for a small fraction of time divide by the age of the earth)."


rationally speaking , dari golongan yang percaya ada tuhan pun, segalanya dariNYA  maka itu misal kalau macam pegangan saya nothing is destroyed in 'real' understanding,  the energy will take different routes, phases, forms etc , dari Dia semua datang, pada DIA semua kembali.

sebab itu kalau tak percaya ada tuhan, it makes no sense at all, tak lojikal lamgsung sebab ROOT itu 'tidak kelihatan'

mostly akan sebut SUPREME 'BEING', as i mentioned untuk 'tuhan' saya tak pakai istilah being/kene jadi. So in a sense setiap kene jadi itu akan cari tuhan depa , samada sedar or tidak.

sebaik2 kene jadi ialah Manusia. kejadian paling baik so it is MANUSIA yang supreme being. Supremo gitu.

bila kita sebut 'nature', maksudnya kene jadi or kejadian. doesnt need be depan mata untuk di lihat baru maksud ADA. kita rasa angin but tak nampak, so kalo ada roh tanpa jasad, it is still human being, ada kejadian dalam FORM energy 'light'

and light pun kejadian , kene jadi so it is part of nature too. Jin dari api , api is heat so it is part of nature too, sebelum ada manusia sudah ada djinn berpoloh ribu taun lebih awal, sebelum ada manusia sudah ada fossils and other micro organism berjuta tahun dalam dunia lebih awal.

maybe skop nature to some people tak seluas saya, pendapat saya nature is apa pun ciptaan tuhan. ketetapanNYA. tekanan tinggi turun ke tekanan rendah, that is natural way dan bukan sebaliknya. lelaki suka perempuan , that is natural way dan bukan sebaliknya lelaki kawin dengan lelaki, that is unnatural, luar tabie.

pendapat saya cuma ada 2 kejadian yang ada potensi REBELLIOUS pada ketetapan tuhan, namely manusia DAN djinn. 2 kejadian ini ada kemungkinan memberontak dan ingkar suruhanNYA.

PEACE, is when things happened naturally (at peace, in shalom)

Agul

nothing is destroyed..everything just taking different form..word such as 'destroyed' merely description to a process

Acoording to the law of conservation of energy. Nothing is destroyed.燤atters爋r爀nergy爋nly爂et爐ransformed.燘ased爋n爉odern爌hysics,爉atter爄s燼爁orm爋f爀nergy.

u claimed Man dwell somewhere before come to earth? boleh saya tau Man dwell di mana before datang earth?

No. Nowhere do  I talk about where Man originates.

elaborate the following

" Based on studies, man comes to dwell on earth quite recently. So man,at that time is not part of nature. (based on the understanding that weare referring our immediate environment, earth as nature)

So man now exist here, and we become a small part of nature (for a small fraction of time divide by the age of the earth)."


rationally speaking , dari golongan yang percaya ada tuhan pun, segalanya dariNYA  maka itu misal kalau macam pegangan saya nothing is destroyed in 'real' understanding,  the energy will take different routes, phases, forms etc , dari Dia semua datang, pada DIA semua kembali.

My comment were based on anthrophological studies and what studies there where of the earth and man history.
I do not talk about God. Just nature which maybe thought of as our surrounding, immediate, even stellar environment.
Man compared to the earth, is miniscule. Compared to the cosmos, we are practically, nothing.  

and light pun kejadian , kene jadi so it is part of nature too. Jin dari api , api is heat so it is part of nature too, sebelum ada manusia sudah ada djinn berpoloh ribu taun lebih awal, sebelum ada manusia sudah ada fossils and other micro organism berjuta tahun dalam dunia lebih awal.

It's like someone coming to your house for a short moment. The house already exist for 爈ong time.

maybe skop nature to some people tak seluas saya, pendapat saya nature is apa pun ciptaan tuhan. ketetapanNYA. tekanan tinggi turun ke tekanan rendah, that is natural way dan bukan sebaliknya. lelaki suka perempuan , that is natural way dan bukan sebaliknya lelaki kawin dengan lelaki, that is unnatural, luar tabie.

Nature is燽ig.營t爄s everything occuring. What is natural? Who defines natural?
Thing happens based on fixed,爏cientific and immutable law.
Maybe this is natural.

To simplify this discussion, I went for a smaller scale, specifically man immediate environment. the earth. To expand the scope too much would be akin to a snail, racing a full fledged modern fighter jet.

hamizao

I gather the key word here is "nature". Two views come to my mind as the possible context for this topic:

One is the whole system of existence, forces and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man. Two, other life forms or existence distinct from man.

I hold the belief that a greater part of nature as  defined above has "evolved" over time and man was placed to live in it to reap, harness and use it for the continuance of his progeny. To do this man must first of all understand the nature (here used as the fundamental  qualities; identity or essential charecter) of nature itself.  Since years in memory, man has been doing just that. But then man has been gifted with a brain that, if used correctly (my belief again), can achieve man's ultimate destiny.

Having said that, I would be the first to say ............"not without much hardship or challenges". Many of mankind will fall along the way. But I do not see this Man VS Nature as a direct confrontational thing as that wasn't the original plan. For example, when there is a heavy rain you take shelter while the rain fill up the dried up ponds and padi fields. When there is so much water in the river you may harness it to produce power to assist you.  When the volcano spew its lava you stay away from it's path. So, you learn it's bahaviour so that next time round you are prepared for nature's calamity. History tells us how many groups of mankind have perished before in the face of different natural calamities (some say by God's hands- whatever) but hey, we are still here ! Now, the most unique quality of man is his dual form of existence - physical and spiritual. Can you say that for the trees and the rain...?:re:

[ Last edited by  hamizao at 18-2-2008 09:51 PM ]