楼主根据什么说“草地却仍以原始状态存在”呢？楼主可确认，人们不对草地进行人工干预（至少可以结合中国情况谈谈）？

楼主对该模型的理解似乎有些“自由”。

楼主如何假设“该模型的假设”就是“新的生产方式”？

楼主如何又假设“该模型中的草地却要保留原始状态”？

楼主“厚此薄彼”般地理解该模型，又做何理解呢？

有人说：“吸烟有害健康，比如吸烟会导致***病，某某因为吸烟得了***病。”

可是，你要说：“我们这里根本就没有吸烟的人，（你的）例子与（我们的）健康有什么关系呢？”（那些因吸烟而健康受损的人，只为你的例子活着）

请问“草地的负载能力”，楼主是如何定义的？即如何判定“食草动物的数量”小于“草地的负载能力”？

“食草动物的数量稳定”是楼主的猜想、经验还是逻辑推理？或者，楼主如何定义“数量稳定”？

楼主是否听过，生物学与混沌相结合的一些说法？

My view is that everything happening in the organic world can be interpreted with entropy. The difference between the organic and the inorganic is the former has a structure and the structure has the potential and ability to sustain itself. It seems that the organic system absorb low entropy flow (lef) from outside the system and turn it into two parts. One is energy and if there is excessive energy, turns the excessive into structure. The structure is organized in such a fashion that it enables the system to absorb more lef. As Geroges Bataille put it, the mission of any living being is to consume as much energy as possible. It can either consume it immediately, like taking something as food and turning it into energy for its daily activities, or it can build some structures with the energy it is not able to consume immediately. When a living being dies, his structure breaks down and could no longer absorb lef from the environment so there is no need to make a distinction between it and its environment. The competition in the organic world is nothing more than a competition for lef, which comes essentially from the sun. An organic entity has two ways of acquiring lef, one is to get it directly from the sun, like plants in photosynthesis process. The other is to destroy the structure of other entities and turn them back into lef, or energy. Carnivorous take other animals as food while herbivorous take plants. Thus, for living beings, to survive is to protect its structure and at the same time absorbing the necessary lef. Thus, animals tend to divide them into two families according to the different tactics they adopt in realizing this goal. One pays more attention to the protection of the structure while the other attaches more emphasis on absorbing more lef from the environment. Some, like shellfishes or crustaceans, develop strong shells to protect their soft body from predators. However, the enhancement of their ability to protect is somewhat shadowed by the loss of mobility and thus ability to find food, if they could not produce food for themselves like plants. As a result, some adopted another way, which is to make oneself faster, develop more powerful muscles, which are what most predators do. Thus lies the paradox between mobility and security and the route of evolution swings back and forth between the two ends.

So then, what is the difference between human beings and other organic entities, namely, animals and plants? It seems quite odd to raise the question here as my previous arguments centre on organic structures. Human beings, like other organic entities, are nothing more than structures mentioned above. But I want to make it out that the difference lies just in the structure. According to most scientists, the difference between human and animals lies in the formers ability to make tools. Our ancestors could make a knife by cracking a pebble, while a monkey, even if it can use a sharp fragment of a pebble as a knife, does not know how to make the latter from the former. But one must notice, tool is defined by human beings and it doesn’t mean anything to other animals. For them, tool is just a part of their body. Crabs with their pincers, octopuses with their tentacles, birds with their beaks, are all good examples of tools. So, it’s not true that animals cannot make tools but they make tools a part of their body. In fact, some of their tools are so intricately designed and well functioned that we marvel at them or in many cases try to make our tools after their shape.

Then, where in the world is the difference? My answer is we are different from animals in our ability to reshape ourselves. Some animals are very good at reshaping themselves, such as amebas. Or change part of their body according the changes of the environment, like chameleons. However, when compared with human being, they are nothing more than small tricks. When we find the world not comfortable to live in, we just make some changes, not to our bodies, but to the way we interact with the environment. When we come across a river, we build boats or bridges, instead of develop fins and webs. When we want to get rid of gravity, we resort to planes instead of wings. But, what is most important of all is our ability to build a structure called society. Often we call ourselves social animals. But our society is different from the society of other animals like ants and termites. The way their society is organized is through instinct and whose structure cannot be changed according to the environment. In the society of ants, there is the queen, the worker ants and the fighter ants. There roles are decided from the moment from their birth. Each of these three kinds of ants develops respective organs for their specific functions in the society. But for we human beings, the case is totally different. Biologically speaking, every individual in the society is identical. What differ one social member from another is the role he is playing in the system. Every individual can play many different roles through his lifespan. No one is born an engineer or a politician. Even if he is born a king, it does not necessarily mean he will remain on his throne all his life. A beggar could one day become the king. As a result, the social structure can easily reshape itself if necessary. In this structure, what matter are not the members of it but the way they interact with each other. The next chapter will show how human social structures emerged and evolved in history. It will also give you a glimpse of how the two greatest treasures of mankind, namely religion and philosophy, come to surface.

As I have mentioned at the beginning of this essay, all living organic beings are structures that are designed to absorb lef from the environment. To put it in a plain way, is to find enough food to sustain themselves while protect oneself from natural disasters and predators. In ancient times, the world is full of uncertainties and dangers that our ancestors found them to weak to compete with other animals. They were not endowed with crust like crustaceans to protect them adequately or strong muscles like lions to fight other animals sufficiently. Thus, they sought to reshape them. Thus, they formed small groups in hunting and habituating. These groups, which were formed first on blood ties, are known today as tribes. And then, alliance was reached among different tribes that they become what are known as nations or states. With these groups, mankinds were able to operate in a coordinated way and thus a hundred organized men were stronger than the strongest lion. On the other hand, they reshape themselves by taking some inorganic materials from the environment as part of their organic strength, which is, making tools. They made axes and knives out of flint, as it is easier to shape than other materials. They made clothes of animal skins to keep them warm in winter and canoes to cross river so as to find more food. They built houses as shelters from the harsh environment. But what really made a difference is when the two strengths of group and tools are combined that they became stronger both in terms of numbers and individual strength. A good example is the ancient Chinese who learnt to build dams and canals to diverge flood and protect their crops. Thus, as they became stronger, they can make more changes to the environment to make it more comfortable to live in and once they lived more comfortably they had more time to develop new tools to make their life better which means more changes to the environment. The virtuous cycle goes on and on.