Six Dragons

“…it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs: it takes effort and work.” - Detective Lt. William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) in “Se7en” (1995)

Charles Darwin determined that living organisms have only two choices in their innate environment: adapt or die.
Superior beings adapt. Naturally, unfit organisms fail to make it to the next link in the chain of life. This was, by far, the easiest concept to remember in science class.
Today, there seems to be an issue with this idea. This issue lies in a fundamental misconception of the rule that Darwin provided for all of us.
Our society has such a simple notion so assbackwards that it’s more disconcerting than American remakes of Japanese horror films.
Now, to help interpret the cornerstone of Darwinian law, I present exhibit A: The Wall Theory.
(Rest assured. Pink Floyd has nothing to do with this; mostly because I know practically nothing about music, hence the reason for using obscure movie analogies.)
The Wall Theory just corrects the common misconceptions of Darwin’s scientific findings. The “wall” is a mere metaphorical reference for any obstacle we face in our tangible environment, and how we attempt to hurdle it.
Throughout history, human beings have fostered a progressive obsession with tearing down walls. The walls portray man’s aggression and tenacity. It’s how we handle life’s ongoing struggles.
For example, modern luxuries have helped us all deal with life's walls. When it gets too cold, we can turn up the heat. When it gets too hot, we can switch on the central air.
Even though I’ve loved and praised gas and refrigerants over many years, I’m just now failing to see the logic in it. In reality, we are not adapting to our environment. We are actually making our environment adapt to us!
Remember what it really took to adapt? Things like walking upright or increasing cranial capacities?
When did impatience supersede mankind's loyalty to nature?
I guess naturally adapting to walls takes too much damn effort and work.
It’s much quicker and more efficient to tear down walls and build them back up again at our discretion, but, doesn’t this process make the walls adapting? So, according to Darwin, if we as human beings are not adapting anymore, what does that make us?
Yep, you got it.
But more people wake up on this planet than die, and the reason is very obvious. This place just wouldn't be called nature anymore if dying became more ordinary than living.
Due to the straightforward laws of our environment, we must choose life at all costs. We must strive to adapt. No human being wants to subsist in anti-nature, right?

(Spoiler Alert: More obscure movie analogies!)

Nothing portrays the wall theory better than the opening sequence of one of the greatest early 90’s flicks, The Last Boy Scout. Being one of the most awesome introductions in the history of cinema, this one haunts you like a bad dream. Fitness guru Billy Blanks plays the role of a desperate football player who starts the most unconventional shooting spree in history by yanking a handgun out of his uniform en route to the end zone. I wish Madden games had this option. Why can't they replace the spin button with something like that? C'mon EA. Next season, let's evade would-be tacklers by shooting them, no?
ANYWAYS, I consider this the perfect allegory. Frame by frame, there’s a poetic struggle in Blank's character that currently exists in all of us – the struggle to adapt.
For different reasons, this is exactly how we’ve been scoring all of our touchdowns lately - meaning that more and more human beings are settling for unnatural means to their own ends. We are all vigilantes, taking the law into our own hands.
Whether the answer to your wall is a drug that bends it, a steroid that defies it, or a firearm that disputes it, it’s one in the same. Once you cross the goal line, you’ll most likely end up on one knee, heat to your head, embarking the inevitable.

Switching gears a bit, I've discovered that in the midst of arguing for nature’s laws, a similar plea for adapting to the terms of the universe presents itself. Again, grabbing a dictionary and taking the definition verbatim yields the best defense.
Again, sadly, common sense falls unusually short of convincing most people of the truth.
The real meaning of this word lies behind its numerical prefix. I've never seen the term "biverse" used before in any scholarly text. Have you?
Am I the only person scratching my head here? It seems logical to combine the concepts of nature with the concepts of the place in which it resides in.
Why aren't we doing everything in our power to live life naturally and universally?

It's sounds so vague and difficult to apply, but it's really not.
Just take a step back, and try to look at the big picture - like you're on the outside looking in.

Let's try an exercise this part of the brain right now... For instance, what's the worst aspect of a war? Collateral damage? Economic repercussions? The fact that it's purely unethical, and outright ridiculous to build a foundation of peace through the use of violence?

Without going on and on, how about summing it all up by simply saying that war breaks the law.

What else do you need to hear?

War is the most reckless response to any wall. Naturally, we can't afford to choose death over life. Universally, that decision affects everyone no matter what side you're on.