> That being said; all creation set into motion will be corrupted and destroy by motion unless constantly maintained. yet therein lies a key aspect of this thread....your insights taken to their logical conclusion seem to imply we should avoid wasting effort on creating corruptable structures & instead simply 'leverage' nature's natural maintenance system. Ie- by planting seeds we need to survive & inviting other lifeforms to help maintain it; creating an ecosystem for them to survive & grow in unity with us. Or to use a contrasting analogy: a software programmer seeks to automate a procedure using digital language and machinery/robots - which is difficult because much of that work goes against nature and at best represents structures that can easily be destroyed (technology) - whereas if programmer simply focused his/her efforts in nature they could acheive 'automation' of their needs naturally and in a way that is not easily destroyed but one that is sustained and grows; generations beyond even their death and without efffort beyond said death or needing a 'software program' continually running. now, we don't want to necessarily sleep among bugs and forest critters - but what I am trying to convey here is perhaps a vision for a 'city' or 'village' in a forest-like environment that is less concreate and features more natural structures that the ecosystem ie- nature will be inclined to maintain 'automatically'. and im also trying to ascertain whether or not 'forests' were not created by the very intelligence we can 'tap into' if we can comprehend/grasp/and perhaps 'wield' if we were to more effectively unify... as you say we are ONE within ALL; we are the ecosystem itself sustaining itself and so if we 'decided' to create a new "era of forests" and get off this concrete devolution path but rather envisioned a 'city forest' one that does not destroy trees but encourages more, and larger/taller ones - and one that does not endanger animals but that attracts them; as well as perhaps reserving a place for us inside too; ie- not in concrete towers but perhaps more natural dwellings in the sides of hills or maybe even our own 'towers in the trees' innovative spaces that could be designed to securely rest on the branches and crevaces of trees not unlike how the very critters there do now (or maybe our own 'nests' that use a combination of man-made technologies but nestled in this 'tree' environment not unlike the structure and strategic placement of an insect nest). its funny as i write this cause it suggests 'devolving' back into monkey days, a thought crossed my mind to replace transport with a network of swinging vines haha - yet I do ponder about the viability of 'advanced forest cities' that may be possible at some point... maybe now, as refuge from communists & its idolotors. And particularly as we become increasingly aware that these 'concrete jungles' many of us find ourselves in are effectively concentration camps that as you say require constant maintanenence - what better thing to keep prisoners busy than to keep them tending to the never-ending maintenance of their own crumbling prisons. > Yes. Concrete is designed to stiffen growth, to desperately hold back motion enforcing order by transmuting creation back to base, and into balance. Burn a forest down and watch nature reclaim it; recreating an ecosystem from source, while emitting out to attract life. Again, this seems to support the conclusion that we should build not with concrete but with nature. Why not instead of building a city in concrete we instead build a city in the forest?