I think it’s completely obvious that we should abide by nature’s principles. After all, we are part of nature. Am I wrong? I think it was Boyle who showed the examples of the village food chain and how one small change can impact everything. This makes complete sense! Even if it were a hypothetical situation, which for all I know it might be, it’d still make sense. How long have we been hearing about the food chain? As far back as I can remember. And what’s the moral of the story behind the food chain? Everything eats something under it. Common sense should tell every one of us that if we eliminate a level of the food chain, anything higher then it will cease to exist and anything lower then it will flourish. Both would be equally bad for everyone. This shouldn’t be something new to us, but in a way it is, because lots of people don’t have their eyes open to what’s happening around us.
It makes sense to me that Boyle wrote what he did like he did. It’s obvious, the sarcasm and bitterness in his words. I think he did what anybody would do when sick and tired of a greater power taking something extremely important too lightly. He mocked them with their own apathetical undertone.
Eventually, if we keep using up all of our resources and going gung-ho on this planet’s natural supplies, we’ll be screwed. Not in the very distant future, but soon I’m led to believe. Nature’s a lot like democracy. Both have got their own checks and balances in place to keep one party or person, or insect or mammal from overriding all of the rest, which as we’ve witnessed so many times in the past can lead to devastation, war, poverty… the list goes on. In short, nothing good.