Really, we are in agreement. Like you say the difference is in definition. I think the term mother was attached to nature because of certain qualities of ‘mother’ and of ‘nature’. But as you rightly point out, nature has many other qualities not shared by ‘mother’ and visa versa. I agree nature isn’t conscious. In truth nature doesn’t care about you and me. When you are bound to nature however, a balance is maintained.

I agree we don’t know what diseases would have developed by looking at our ancestors but we can look at hunter-gatherer tribes today for that information. They are largely free of the the big killers of the West — heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes etc as far as I know.

A fair amount of confusion is caused by reports of tribal people who no longer live the traditional lives, Eskimos, Aborigines etc.

Thanks for your comment :-)

two thoughts:
1., You and I have different definitions of “mother”. For me it’s linked to a conscious mind, which Nature is definitely not. You can beg, you can cry, Nature doesn’t listen.

2., The diseases you cite weren’t common among humans in the past ages because humans didn’t live long enough to actually get them. If your lifespan is 30 years, chances of cancer, heart attacks and diabetes are pretty slim.

But I share your general view on these things.