If human beings followed the laws of nature, there would be no conflicts or wars.

This is a provocative statement that invites us to distinguish between Violence (which exists in nature) and War (which is a human invention).
At first glance, nature seems violent: the lion hunts the gazelle, the storm breaks the tree. But there is a fundamental difference between the "Law of the Jungle" and the "Law of Man": Malice vs. Necessity.
Here is why aligning with nature would indeed eliminate war:
The Law of Sufficiency (vs. Greed): In nature, an animal takes only what it needs to survive today.
A leopard does not kill a thousand gazelles to store them in a freezer "just in case" or to sell them to other leopards for profit.
A tree grows to reach the sunlight; it does not try to grow taller just to humiliate the tree next to it. Human conflict almost always stems from accumulation and greed—the desire to own more than one needs, or to control resources that belong to others. Nature operates on balance; humans operate on excess.
The Absence of Ideology: Nature fights for survival (food, territory, mating). These are tangible, biological imperatives. Humans go to war for abstract concepts: religion, political borders, national pride, money, or "honor."
If we followed nature, we might fight to protect our home (defense), but we would never travel thousands of miles to kill someone because they believe in a different god or economic system. Nature does not deal in abstractions; it deals in reality.
The Law of Interconnectedness: An ecosystem understands implicitly that destroying the "other" eventually destroys the "self." If the wolves eat all the deer, the wolves starve. There is a built-in check and balance. Human warfare often ignores this. We create weapons that can destroy the very environment we depend on. To follow the laws of nature is to recognize that we are part of the web, not the masters of it.
"Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished." — Lao Tzu
timelessquotes.blog