Why it is considered being in one’s own interest to behave

as life-friendly (“vivistic”) as possible


A treatise about

the belief and assertion that it’s

in everyone’s best interest to behave as life- friendly

as possible, because there is a law of nature which implies

that life-unfriendly behaviour all in all never brings the degree

of gratification one expects or hopes to get in that way,

but on the contrary a proportionate degree of 

discontent or worse.


On this page an efford will be made to motivate the increasingly recurring assurance in Vivistic publications that it’s also in ones own interest to optimally spare life and well-being of all kinds of beings as extensively as possible.

As may be known by now this assurance briefly holds that the more nature (= life-) unfriendly one behaves, the heavier one will be punished for that by natural causes, as a result of which one all in all will not be better off with it, but worse.

As natural causes of punishment particularily health problems, but also accidents and setbacks in the personal sphere use to be mentioned.

As a nature-unfriendly kind of behaviour particularily environmental and otherwise nature-unfriendly human economical activities use to be mentioned.

In this treatise also the most occurring other kinds of nature-unfriendly behaviour as well as other kinds of punishment by nature will be adressed.

Since it (currently) doesn’t seem possible to completely prove the connection between the one and the other scientifically, wherever possible it’s likelihood will primarily be justified on the basis of practical examples, among which own experiences of the author.


What has been proven

1) A scientifically proven fact which is very well suited to function as an indication that the link between life-unfriendly behavior and on the other natural penalties actually exists, is the one that vegetarians are on average less sick and reach a higher age than omnivores.

As known vegetarians principally reject eating animals, as a result of which they feed mainly on plant products, which involves that relatively many fruits are eaten. This in its turn implies that their feeding pattern is proportionally more life-friendly than the omnivorious pattern (which involves eating all kinds of animal food), because fruits are not living beings that have to be killed before being eaten.
With this fact in mind in a sense it’s obvious to ask oneself whether the practise of still more life-friendly feeding principles (such as the vegan one and fructarianism (often called “fruitarianism”)) consequently results in on average even less being sick and reaching an even higher age.
As far as is generally known this has not (yet) been studied scientifically, but from own experience the author of this site can report that any further step towards his eventual (almost) completely life-friendly (vivistic) diet with him led to a corresponding improvement in his general welfare, including reduction of hitherto conventional health ailments. (More detailed: xxx)

In other areas than the one of nutrition as well there are several kinds of life-unfriendly behavior of which has been proven that they often lead to illness or even to death.

2) The use of tobacco products for example increases the likelihood that sooner or later the smoker will be afflicted with lung cancer significantly.
In case this actually happens it can very well be seen as a natural punishment for the relevant nature-unfriendly behaviour, as smoking implies that tobaco plants have been bereft of their vital leaves and that these leaves including the many microbes that are living on and inside them are burned.

3) Use of soft or hard drugs as well has been proven to damage health more or less seriously in many a case. Most of them are made out of plants, that have to be mutilated or killed for this purpose. Here as well many microbes are killed in production and use.

4) Tooth decay is mostly caused by consumption of sweets (but also of artificially sweetened foods). The artificially produced sugar inside is mostly made out of plants such as sugar beets or sugar cane. The beets have to be killed, the cane plants are mutilated when their leaves are cut off.

Relatively recently by the way it has become clear in medical circles, that consumption of (too much) artificial sugars is no less dangerous for health than consumption of (too much) saturised fats.

5) Consumption of alcohol is known to kill microbes like vitamins inside the body. In this case the punishments that often are a consequence (for instance as a result of reduced reaction rate in traffic, or of misguided actions), are directly caused by the life-unfriendly behaviour, as this leads to a shortage of vitamins that are able to carry out their function of making the drinkers organs function properly.


What doesn’t need to be proven

In many a case the connection between nature-unfriendly behaviour
and undesirable consequences is that evident that it doesn’t need to be proven:

1) Driving car for instance is a rather nature-unfriendly activity; the use of fuel implies the killing of numberless microbes that once were living their natural life inside crude oil. Also many insects use to be killed, when they are crushed against the car front. Furthermore driving implies shared responsability for oil disasters and other kinds of pollution due to oil spills. Apart from that use of fuel implies co causation of further global warming. Also it implies a proportionate responsability for the misery that political maneuvering including military force aimed at ensuring the availability of crude oil for fuel production daily causes to many humans and other living beings.

In many a case this way of life-unfriendly behaviour leads to trafic accidents in which drivers and/or passengers are killed or injured more or less heavily xxx.

In all cases it brings along stress, a Russian roulette-like uncertainty and the more and further one drives, a proportionate greater disruption of one’s natural social relation.

It doesn’t seem farfetched to see the one as a natural punishment for the other.

Of course the same goes m.m. for other ways of motorised transportation such as flying and traveling by train, bus, tram, vessel, etc.

2) Bullfighting is not exactly nature-friendly. So when fighters or assistents are killed or injured by a bull this can very well be seen as a just punishment of the relevant persons, although this way of torturing animals to death mostly is still legal in the places where it takes place xxx.

3) Letting off popping New Year fireworks has several nature-unfriendly aspects. It’s noise makes many pets as well as wild animals panic, whereby some of them lose their lives.
Also well-being and sometimes even health of many people are affected as a result. Furthermore all that fire made on the relevant evening implies that numberless microbes die without any need.
Therefore the relatively many injuries and fatal accidents this way of celebrating the start of a new calender year usually brings along can be considered as a de facto punishment for this (mostly legal) nature-unfriendly kind of behaviour xxx.

Of course one could say that most car drivers, bull fighters and fireworks lighters aren’t even aware of the fact that what they do is rather nature-unfriendly.
In case they aren’t, but nevertheless are affected by that of which they took the risk, this can be seen as a punishment with an admonishing and preventive function.
It’s true that not all who drive car, fight bulls or let off popping fireworks are directly punished for that nature-unfriendly behaviour, but that doesn’t mean that not all sooner or later are punished.
The intention of this treatise is to explain why it’s highly probable that any kind of nature- unfriendly behavior is punished by definition, so that it can be assumed to serve one’s own interest to leave this kind of behavior behind as much as possible.
The foregoing implies that also when nature-unfriendly behavior is not immediately interrupted or followed by doom for the relevant person(s), it is assumed that later on it will be punished equally.
(Maybe in this context it might be interesting to ask a number of those who in their past do have driven car pretty much, have fought bulls or have let off fire-works quite a lot, at older age whether they would do it all again, when taking into consideration that (part of) the less pleasant things that have befallen to them since then, may have been a punishment of nature for their nature-unfriendly behavior at that time).



Related pages:

  • An enumberation of about the most occurring ways of (very) life-unfriendly behaviour is on the following special page: xxx
  • An enumberation of about the most occurring serious personal undesirabilities, that in some cases can be seen as a direct punishment for certain ways of nature-unfriendly behaviour, but in many other cases as an indirect one, is on the following special page: xxx
  • Own experiences in this context of the author of this site:  xxx






© Copyright Nicolas Pleumekers  ( Nature Protection Foundation)