Final Conclusion: The Saltwater crocodile is a proof for the existence of fundamental natural laws, which are now recognizable in reverse by their properties and characteristics.
Summary and definitions
The past reflection has proven the correctness of the four assumptions made in the beginning: At the absolute top of the food pyramid of the transition between land and water, which is extremely important in terms of history of life, there is an animal which is equipped with practically the highest possible physical strength and stability, while it immediately impairs or damages the weaker animals of its environment to such a low extent that further reduction would not be possible. It can be reasonably excluded that this aggravated interplay of properties and effects is a coincidence. Thus, the Saltwater crocodiles must, in the evolutionary sense, have very successfully adapted to natural laws, which must exist within the deeper ecological structure and which are now recognizable in reverse by their properties and characteristics. But how could these natural laws be defined, and how do their mechanisms work?
Obviously, the Saltwater crocodile acts in the ecosystem in such a way that it causes as little disturbance – and thus as little resistance – as possible
In order to firmly grasp the conclusions on the Saltwater crocodile, a comparison with phenomena being researched in fluid mechanics is helpful. There, it concerns resistance by matter particles, on which a moving mass body meets. If the body meets an air molecule, then it must have sufficient mass and speed to continue its journey, in order to displace it. If the motion runs through a space filled with air molecules, it is necessary for easy motion progress that it is shaped in such a way that it causes as little resistance as possible.
If the foremost part of the body were to consist of a large frontal surface in the direction of motion, the total resistance of the air molecules would become so large that it would advance only very slowly or not at all. Increasing the speed would cost enormous energy, and the resulting counter-pressure on the body would ultimately increase its mechanical stress, and consequently wear. Therefore, animals which constantly move in the water or air have adapted themselves extensively to these laws, which finally cause the resistance of matter particles. In very simple terms, they have become “streamlined” through the evolutionary design of their characteristics, as far as the other necessary functions of their physique permit, so that the resistance of the air or water molecules is as low as possible. A trout can now spend its entire life in a fast-flowing river, all the while unfolding its other characteristics and needs.
The principle of this adaptation to a streamlined body is quite similar to that of the combination of the four proven assumptions. However, now it is not about the effects of an accumulation of individual matter particles, but about a very complex structure of numerous interacting organisms. The space they fill is the ecosystem of the crocodile’s habitat. All anatomical features and the behavior of Saltwater crocodiles described in assumptions 3 and 4 are clearly directed to live within this space in such a way that the other organisms are disturbed as little as possible by their own external effects – no matter what kind they are – or that the other life forms even benefit from them. Obviously, the better this succeeds, the more stable and secure one’s own existence in the environment becomes.
The structural basis of the definition can be found in the meaning of the term “freedom”
If one looks for a concrete definition of the ecosystem structure through which the saltwater crocodile has aligned itself to move as resistance-free as possible, one finds the best approach in a term that has formed in all the major language families of civilization: ”Freedom”. In the mechanical sense, the meaning of this word is very simple. The roots of the word freedom lie in the old Germanic „fri halsa“ , which simply meant that one’s own neck belonged to themselves, i.e. that the individual animate beeings determine themselves.
The roots of the concept of freedom in Latin occur similarly, for example, where ”libertate“ also refers to self-determination at its core, or in ancient Greek, where “e¬leuqería“ meant “independent living” and “leúqeron“ meant “domination over oneself”. Finally, the actual meaning of the word together with its recognition as regularity of nature can be found through the resourceful wisdom of the vernacular, because it has also produced such formulations in all language families as “free nature” or “free as a bird”.
Now to reflect on the Saltwater crocodile’s effects on the freedom of all other participants in its habitat, it becomes clear that it leads to the slightest possible reduction of these. Every disturbance or suffering created by the crocodile – no matter which category it is in – would run against the free and thus self-determined development of other living beings and thus the basic structure of the ecosystem. It is impossible not to cause any disturbances at all, just as it would be impossible for the trout to reach a body through evolution that moves completely freely of resistance to water molecules. It is possible, however, to adapt one’s anatomy and behaviour in such a way that this resistance is reduced to a minimum.
The laws of nature mirrored in the crocodile can also be discovered in the overall framework of the ecosystem
Now, one can imagine that the crocodile is a form that is almost exactly adapted to the laws of nature, just like in a cake mould or a sand mould. Then it must also be the case that the mould itself is also oriented towards the maximum possible freedom of all living beings – now here, however, in an overall context. This means, then, that nature itself must be a system that is oriented towards producing the maximum freedom and the minimum suffering for all living beings in the ecosystem – just as the saltwater crocodile does in its living environment.
If one now looks to the overall frame of animated nature, it becomes indeed apparent that its structural orientation corresponds exactly to what is visible in the Saltwater Crocodile in pointed concentration. The ecosystem as a whole thus has the same effect on all the individuals within it as the Saltwater Crocodile does as a single species or individual. It is certainly not easy to comprehend this change of perspective from the crocodile onto the very large scale of the whole nature. But here, again, with a systematic approach and reflection, much concrete evidence can be found.
A simple one can be implemented by wandering through nature for an afternoon and observing every vertebrate that becomes visible. The proportion of specimens whose self-determination is restricted in some concrete way will be close to zero on average. This will be the case in all species and it does not matter where on the planet the study is conducted. Each action of the average individual is based on its own decisions. Even if, for example, a bird is seen avoiding a hawk and fleeing, this is the result of the self-determined decision of the bird, not that of the predator, who would certainly prefer a completely different decision.
Furthermore, during the investigation in the reality of nature, it will be rare to find a sick or injured vertebrate. Such states of physical restriction also clearly run counter to freedom, because the affected individual can no longer dispose of and develop its innate characteristics. That this is so rare to find is a result of the structural effect of the overall frame of nature, which has manifested in the crocodile through the automatic rapid detection of sick or injured animals, as well as rapid killing during exploitation. In the overall framework, it is the high tenseness of any healthy ecosystem that usually puts an end to misery and suffering very quickly. Because of all this, we see in the reality of the forest almost only healthy, self-determined and thus free birds, just as we see almost only self-determined and thus free fish when snorkeling in a coral reef.
If one combines the mechanisms of “freedom” with the meaning of the term “respect”, the crocodile becomes recognisable as the most “respectful” life form
After recognizing freedom as the central and structural regularity of living nature, and that it has a basis in fundamental natural laws, the circle can be closed to the object of the meaning of the term “respect”, which was briefly reflected upon on the start page. Again, this is meant as a purely mechanical view. But anyway, with this step it becomes recognisable that there is something like a true and very deep ” ethic” in nature.
The roots of the word “respect” lie in the Latin “respectio”, which meant the same as “consideration“ in an objective regard. In order to keep the actual mechanisms of respect easily understandable, it is appropriate to firt reflect on the question of how a human person who wants to behave “respectfully” acts towards other people: This person would endeavor not to disturb or damage other people through its own actions, or at least as little as possible in their overall free development. And if we now look at the results of the Saltwater crocodile study, already a clear and undeniable coincidence with assumptions 3 and 4 becomes discernible.
Whoever now thinks that there is a fundamental difference with regard to the causes – on the one hand, the intention of the human beeing, and on the other, selective orientation by biological evolution – is thus subject to deception. Human cognition also has its basis in evolutionary processes. The person who strives to behave as respectfully as possible in the company of their peers does so on the basis of ancient patterns, which have always had a positive and secure effect on their own place in the social fabric. And anyway, the principle of the effects is the same.
The mechanisms of “respect” are investigated by empirical research since many years – but so far only in the interpersonal field
In order to illustrate the connection further, I will use quotation from a scientist who, among others, has been working in the field of empirical respect research for many years at the University of Hamburg / Germany. These scientists use highly complex definitions up to mathematical formulation of the mechanisms of the research field. The main focus is the so-called “horizontal respect”. This can be defined in an attitude in which the subject perceives the object at exactly the same eye level and acts accordingly. The scientist quoted, Professor Dr. Tilman Eckloff, was questioned in an interview , under the heading “At eye level, the freedom of the other is also my freedom” about the essence of his many years of work. During the interview, he makes the following statement:
“If I am respectful, I win my share of freedom. Being respectful at eye level means that my right to free development is, at the same time, the right of others to free development. That is my freedom. I gain the freedom to be able to live as I would like to, but I can only do so if I recognize the freedom of the other as equal.”
Both Professor Eckloff and his colleagues focus almost exclusively on interpersonal respect. This is due to the fact that the larger correlations I have presented here with regard to the Saltwater crocodile as well as to nature in its entirety have never before been described scientifically. However, it should be easy to see that the scientist sketches nothing other than the mechanisms to which the Saltwater crocodile has adapted in the interactions of the entire ecological structure of its habitat. By disturbing the freedom of other living beings as little as possible or even promoting such freedom, it has gained the greatest and most stable freedom of its own as a form of life. The structure of these mechanical laws is amazingly simple. And they are clearly provable on the basis of crocodiles as well as on the basis of nature as a whole.
Uncomfortable conclusions about civilization: Why did its natural sciences never recognise the deeper structures of nature?
So now one question clearly arises: Why have the natural sciences of civilization never found the deepest and most important structures and laws of nature? The answer is also clear: It has to do with the fact that this system has been diametrically opposed to them since the so-called “Neolithic Revolution” – i.e. the conversion of food procurement from hunting and collecting free living beings to their captivity and breeding. Parallel to this process there must have been a cognitive perception from the beginning, that one now moves against the fundamental regularities of nature.
All of nature’s basic regularities are firmly embedded in the cognition of all animals. This has nothing to do with any abstract knowledge about it. For example, every terrestrial vertebrate in a dangerously high situation will feel the same fear: it knows the effects of gravity without having to learn anything about it. This unpleasant fear has the evolutionary purpose of ensuring that the animal in question moves from this situation.
Just as with unpleasant fear in a dangerous altitude situation, there must have been very unpleasant emotions on the collective level of the emerging civilization after the “Neolithic Revolution”, the purpose of which was readjustment to the regular processes of natural structures of life. On a larger scale the orientation against them is no less harmful for the collective than ignoring the effects of gravity for the individual.
The main function of philosophies and religions was the repression of the most important laws of nature and their reinterpretation as purely human things
Since dependence on the new form of food procurement was likely to occur quite quickly after the Neolithic Revolution, the possibility of the readjustment to the regular processes of natural structures of life melted away fast. The collective spirit of civilization thus began to repress the laws of nature and to use all sorts of tricks to even make them its own. As tools for fading out and rewriting, for example, imaginative stories of gods were invented, whose most important goal was the creation of man like them, and who immediately ordered the subjugation of the other forms of life – in other words, to do exactly the opposite of what the central laws of nature have always had the effect of doing.
The philosophers of the supposedly modern “Enlightenment” also always aimed at this purpose, with their complicated twists at the core. They again invented other “noble” and “higher” exclusivities of man, among them such as those of exclusive human reason or the equally exclusive ego-consciousness. The reasons for these inventions are the same as those of religious concepts: it was always a matter of not having to perceive freedom as the central regularity of nature, because one’s own existence was based on the diametrically opposed enslavement of other living beings.
For this reason, Descartes and Kant, for example, declared alleged exclusive human reason to be the all-decisive prerequisite of freedom, with which the same goal was achieved as before, with the equally freely-invented command of god to subjugate and dominate other living beings. So the result of all these psychopathic inventions has always been that only humans can be in a state of freedom, not any other living beings.
In order to repress one’s own perversion and extreme cruelty, concepts such as those of “cruel nature” were invented
Today there are new modern concepts to repress the own perversion of the enslavement of other living beings. Those are such as that of “cruel nature”, which today function especially through the mass media. Again, the goal is to fade out freedom as a central natural regularity as well as the unnaturalness of the own behaviour. Often to be seen in the mass media, the tiny processes of dying by looting in a temporal frame are torn out of time photographically, then served to an audience of millions for an potentially unlimited period.
Further targeted products of the mass media are pictorial and written exhibitions of the rescues of other animals by humans, or their belittlement and “sweetening”. In this way, mass media also provides audiences with the elevations of man, demanded as a noble being, morally detached from other forms of life. Just as with religion and philosophy towards their audience, both sides act subconsciously, for the actual goal of all these efforts has long since moved down into very deep layers of collective and individual consciousness.
The distortions are further extended, in terms of the interpretation of mutualistic and parasitic relationships of other species. For example, the mutualism between ants and aphids is then falsely interpreted as if there were similarities to man’s relationship to the truly enslaved “dairy cows”. Likewise the obligatory mutualism developed over millions of years between leaf-cutter ants and fungus of the Lepiotaceae family, is interpreted as though it were a breeding relationship, corresponding to that of the civilizing agricultural crops.
Darwin already clearly stated the perversion of human behaviour towards other living beings – but this was never really observed
In fact, however, Charles Darwin had already stated very clearly that in regular natural processes there can be no mutual control of the evolutionary development of characteristics between living beings for the exclusive benefit of the manipulator [14: see quote ]. This does not work, as the manipulator would always weaken the other side and thus, in evolutionary terms, would reach a dead end even after tiny periods of time. Darwin’s statement has never been refuted, not even in any area of microbiology or parasitism.
This and many other masks and distortions of reality have created a great distance from their realistic recognition. While real nature has always been determined by freedom and its enjoyment, man is trapped in a stuffy bubble and revolves around himself. Just how crazy the resulting view of the civilized world is can be seen in practically all of its places. Thus, for example, the philosophical assumption of an “exclusive reason” that has been imprinted for centuries in the face of the ever faster destruction of one’s own basis of existence today seems like an embarrassingly bad joke.
Intensive plant farming, on the other hand, is currently showing the end of an evolutionary impasse, because the manipulated and thus weakened plants have to be supported with more and more pesticides. Likewise, the false assertion of the “cruelty of nature” becomes recognizable as downright psychopathic distraction and compensation, in view of the real cruelty towards the billions of imprisoned, raped and de facto permanently tortured birds, mammals and other animals in industrial farming. This is the opposite of what is “intended” in natural laws, even so the term “intended” is not meat here like a personified intention. What causes the natural laws to exist cannot be seen in the crocodile – only the fact that they do exist.
Chances for education and adaptation to the fundamental laws of nature
A spirit as confused as that of today’s civilization, as a result of its unnatural behaviour, will quickly perish, and indeed has already began to do so. If there is still a chance to get out of this situation now, it can only exist through a combination of two paths, both of which must be taken as quickly as possible and with the greatest consequence.
The first consists of an immediate and very far-reaching enlightenment about the connections described. For this, a great effort by practically all the civilizing organs would be necessary. This includes the complete reorientation of the natural sciences and their associated academic teaching. The previous priorities, for example such as the practically pointless search for ever smaller particles of matter, would have to be pushed aside in favor of this new focus. Research into the natural mechanisms of freedom and respect should be given the highest priority in both basic research and academic teaching.
True and fast enlightenment about the real connections of nature would be painful at first – but it is the last and only chance
In order to enlighten people, however painful this may be, it must also be recognized that nature is not cruel and brutal, but that the effects of modern man on other life-long enslaved creatures have reached an extreme and completely perverse level. The cruelty and brutality of what happens in the slavery of farmed animals today is unprecedented in geological history.
The second way, parallel to the fastest possible enlightenment, lies in immediate physical alignment, according to objective laws. First and foremost must be the immediate initiation of the cessation of the enslavement of other animals. It is very easy to prove that this is also where the greatest mental damage has occurred in man himself, both in terms of the development of his own cognition and the mutilation of his entire world view. Without the introduction of this drastic step, which could actually be implemented on a physical level quite easily, there is no possibility of realizing and approaching the first path of mental enlightenment. The enslavement of other animals blocks the development of the cognitive potentials of man.
As far as the final conclusion of this documentation is concerned, this can only lie in the request that anyone who has understood the connection around the previously undescribed laws of nature and the fatal seriousness of the acute situation, and who can somehow promote the civilizing pursuit of that outlined, should fulfill their existing duty accordingly. This applies in particular to journalists or scientists, but also to anyone else who could in any way work in the appropriate direction. There is likely no one to whom the latter does not apply.
For more theoretical information please visit the book journal of my enlightenment novel THE GOLDEN SPRINGTIME: www.the-golden-springtime.com
 Friedrich Kluge, “Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache”, 1883, Translation by Steffen Pichler.
 Publik-Forum Nr.8 2013 (Seite 70-71): „Auf Augenhöhe“ Von Doris Weber,puplished 26.04.2013 (Translation by Steffen Pichler).
 Charles Darwin: “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are depo- sited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. Although many statements may be found in works on natural history to this effect, I cannot find even one which seems to me of any weight.
See source: Darwin, Charles Origin of Species: fourth British edition (1866), page 241.