My single dispute with this shows up in your first sentence. There will always be infinite need, but there will always be limited ability. If nature perceived ultimate protection of all life, then all life would be unlimited in its own protection.
At what point do you recognize the overwhelming history that extinction is the norm and survival is the exception?
What evidence is there for infinite need? What evidence is there that there must be a limited ability to meet needs?
If we look at the past experiences, we can agree that in most cases and in most time periods, there has been a lack of needs being met. However, this does not mean that this is the ultimate extent of possibility, not by a long shot.
Look around and feel deeply - you will find that many opportunities are missed constantly to meet needs - it happens so often it's almost impossible to keep track of.
The roots of all of this are ancient and it is not surprising that most of us have judged that things simply will never be any different or even that things cannot be any different. The problems are accelerated by such judgements though, since thoughts are themselves able to change and limit/liberate reality and potentials.
What IS nature? Do you not have your own nature? Do we not ALL have our own nature? So whose nature is it that you are pointing to here?
I do not accept that normal is a valid description in life. There is no real 'normal' to me, I see that it is a word that is used to describe only what is common experience for those using the term, but in other situations their normal may be anything but. It was once normal for people to apply leaches to each other to drain blood or even normal to burn women to death and call them witches.. It was all perfectly 'normal'.
The difficulty many beings have with survival is not proof that 'difficulty with survival' was ever the intended outcome of life or that it should be blindly accepted - where is the heart and courage in such a position? Heart is not present there at all. The reality is that the extinction threat, which is very real, exists because of DENIAL - including denial of emotions, denial of free thinking, denial of movement, denial of learning, denial of many things. This even includes denial of denial itself.. This is where we deny aspects of reality and then deny that we are denying them - resulting in us being utterly convinced that what we are thinking is actually the truth. However, if we were to realise the need to identify and end denial, we would discover our own self deception and change drastically. Even just thinking that 'anger is bad' is enough to deny our real emotions and to thus then reduce our capacity for empathy and to then also increase the chances of us harming someone else or even dangerously killing ourselves.
Yours is a position of infinite need. You need people to believe the way that you do. You need the social truth of 'denial' to mean what you say it is. You need gods truth to mean your truth to maintain a superior claim of morality. You need the 'imbalance' to be understood as you understand it. You need people to be what you think they should be in order for your balance to occur.
There are positions that see people as they are, that don't require vast amounts if social need/engineering as a starting point.
I disagree and see no evidence for that. You are welcome to provide some.
No, I don't. Actually I have written extensively on the need to dispose of all beliefs.
Again, no - denial has nothing to do with opinion or preference. Anything, pretty much can be denied and it is pretty much the dictionary definition I am using.
Again, no - you are judging here 100%. I actually understand that every human is a piece of God. I also understand that all is one.
My position began there.
You have listed several needs which you claim are mine, but which I know are not. Even if you were correct about them, that is still only several needs and certainly not anywhere near an infinite number of needs. I am not sure exactly how you thought that guessing/projecting/creating some needs would respond to my call for evidence of infinite needs anyway, since infinite literally means 'never ends' - so you would literally need to just keep writing new needs for the rest of your life to even come close to providing evidence of your claim.