If a tree falls in the forest...

That old question: "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is present to hear it?" The answer I've most often heard is "No." or would fall along the lines of no, such as "Reality depends on what we observe and how we observe it, whether individually or collectively".

INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION depends on what we observe and how we observe it. But to say reality DEPENDS on US? Are humans really THAT vain?

So...you mean to tell me, if something exists just beyond the grasp of human perception, it in fact DOESN'T exist? Does this mean microbes didn't exist before man developed the technology to even notice that they were not only THERE, but THERE ALL ALONG??? Or that, before the earth was proven to be round, it was at some point in time, flat? (That, upon seeing it as round for the 1st time, it's flatness conformed to the shape of the belief? Just poofed like Jiffy Pop? *lol*) Does that mean that, until we reach the coastline, all the waves on the beach are on "mute" until WE get there? That something doesn't exist UNLESS or UNTIL "WE" say it does??? 1) NO WONDER the "God" topic and the question of "his" existence (or gender even *lol*) is in such fierce debate now than it was centuries ago. 2) Those who believe the tree would make no sound if no one was around to hear it really need to seriously scale down their ego and their rearrange their views on thier role in this world.

These types seem to hold the opinion which goes as far as to say that this planet NEEDS us somehow(?). It's funny when I actually ASK these types IN WHICH WAY does this planet NEED US? There are usually either a bunch of "uuhhhhh's" or reasons that are related to other human beings. Merely listing off ways WE need the PLANET, therefore leaving my question unanswered. I.E. THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW. They don't know because the fact is, the planet DOESN'T need us. WE might have a need for EACH OTHER, we might have a need for the things that exist here. But with this planet, the fact of the matter is, need is NOT mutual. If this fact stings, or you feel any fear(or offense) of such a thought, that is definitely a symptom of ego and thus proves my point stated above. This world has existed before we did and will continue to exist after we're gone. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe this planet will THRIVE AFTER we're gone. I mean, look at how we're treating this place! Like an effing vending machine! One common answer I hear is "we're interconnected to it", which may be true...But that implies a symbiotic relationship, one of mutual benefit. Look around you. Pick up a newspaper. Look up the Amazon forest on Google maps (look NOW while you STILL CAN! Football field's worth of irreplaceable land is being destroyed BY THE HOUR!)
Clearly this is NOT the case. I can even go as far to say the relationship we have with this planet is NOT symbiotic but...parasitic. Now before you label me a kook (if you haven't already), just look up the definition of "parasite" (thanks to dictionary.com):

Parasite:
1)An organism that lives on or in another...known as the host, from which the body obtains (sustenance).
2)A person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others who gives without giving any proper or useful return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3)(in Ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing/impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

I'm sure we've all encountered our share of #3's *LOL* However, I invite you to take a minute and contemplate the 1st 2 definitions. Does any of it sound familiar? Of course there are those "tree-hugger" types who might counter my argument by stating there are ways we can "give back". Even IF we PROPERLY "gave back" in equal measures of what we took (which DOESN'T happen else we wouldn't be having these enviro. problems), "giving back" (not contributing) seems the best we can do. It's basic human nature to take to sustain life, therefore we CAN'T contribute or GIVE to this planet, only to each other (which usually can only result by TAKING something from the planet.Sad, but fact). So, yes, connected...But in which way? Not of a symbiotic/mutually beneficial relationship like so many "tree-huggers" would prefer to believe. But it isn't, it's a 1-way parasitic one. The belief that giving back(replacing) and contributing(adding to) are one and the same is false (delusion). The same delusion as thinking we have the authortity to declare/discredit the existence of something simply because our finite capacities fail to comprehend (or even detect) it. Just like the delusion that the welfare of this planet DEPENDS on our very presence. Or the delusion that, by buying products that have "green" stickers on them, remembering to turn the lights off, or recycling a couple of cans, that SOMEHOW we can REVERSE the destruction, even RESTORE the equilibrium that once existed? (forestall or SLOW total depletion? yes...Stop or even REVERSE? Get real!)
-> Case in point, for those with A.D.D. *LOL*


So, that's my answer: Unless we succeed in sucking this planet dry of all resources or nuke it to oblivion, this planet is going to keep on turning, the seasons will continue to cycle and trees are going to keep on (noisily)falling...WITH or WITHOUT us...

NOW...onto the "chicken & egg" question *LOL* :.P