Are we losing touch with nature?

[Milk Sheikh]

Written by Wordsworth more than 200 years ago, but it makes more sense now that capitalism is destroying the environment and the common man, as a result, is losing his connection with nature:

The World Is Too Much with us
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
The Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.
------------------------------------------------
Beautiful! Sad but beautiful!

[Widerstand]

What about the uncommon woman?

How am I losing touch with the tree in front of my window?

What's this "touch with nature" thing anyhow?

[Jazzratt]

Wordsworth was a poet, not a scientist. I don't think we can "be in touch" with nature in the first place and people who talk about it are almost invariably talking about being governed by it to a greater extent.

[Milk Sheikh]

What about the uncommon woman?

How am I losing touch with the tree in front of my window?

What's this "touch with nature" thing anyhow?

Do you see nature's beauty? Do you actually feel it? When you see a tree, is it just a tree - or is it beauty itself in the form of a tree?

We hardly feel these things because nature is no longer a lovely lady to be admired and worshipped but rather a thing to be exploited for profit. Capitalists are doing a good job at it. The common man, however, claps and cheers for the capitalist and ridicules environmentalists.

It's a sick, sick world!

[Milk Sheikh]

Wordsworth was a poet, not a scientist. I don't think we can "be in touch" with nature in the first place and people who talk about it are almost invariably talking about being governed by it to a greater extent.

Don't take it literally. I am talking about harmony, being in tune with nature, to admire her grace and beauty instead of molesting her out of greed.

[bailey_187]

i dont like nature, so good. i see no trees out my window, just concrete. and i like it

[Vanguard1917]

We hardly feel these things because nature is no longer a lovely lady to be admired and worshipped but rather a thing to be exploited for profit.

I'm an anti-capitalist, but as a Marxist i nonetheless recognise that exploiting nature for profit has done far more for human advancement than irrational worship of nature ever did.

The aim of socialism is to get rid of capitalism and replace it with something better and more advanced -- not to retreat towards nature adulation and mysticism.

And: "lovely lady to be admired and worshipped" ... Come on now.

[scarletghoul]

There is no such thing as nature. There is only the world, which we should do our best to understand and improve in every way.

[Lord Testicles]

Don't take it literally. I am talking about harmony, being in tune with nature, to admire her grace and beauty instead of molesting her out of greed.

Nature is not harmonious, what are you talking about?

[Milk Sheikh]

I'm an anti-capitalist, but as a Marxist i nonetheless recognise that exploiting nature for profit has done far more for human advancement than irrational worship of nature ever did.
.

You mean like the genocide of native Americans, aborigines etc. etc.?:rolleyes: Human advancement indeed, only countless humans were wiped out for this.

[Milk Sheikh]

When I said nature worship, I didn't mean we must destroy technology and go back to a primitive state. By worship, I mean love. To enjoy nature ... that's all. I don't see why that's in conflict with progress.

[gorillafuck]

I'm an anti-capitalist, but as a Marxist i nonetheless recognise that exploiting nature for profit has done far more for human advancement than irrational worship of nature ever did.
Like killing off indigenous peoples and having capitalists take control of natural resources by taking them away from the people who used it most?

[Lord Testicles]

By worship, I mean love. To enjoy nature ... that's all. I don't see why that's in conflict with progress.

You mean you love all the famine, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, landslides, floods, droughts, the endless list of diseases and viruses and the cornucopia of dangerous animals that kill people every year?

[Widerstand]

You mean you love all the famine, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, landslides, floods, droughts, the endless list of diseases and viruses and the cornucopia of dangerous animals that kill people every year?

Don't you just love the thrill?

[Lobotomy]

I think loving nature is just based on personal preference, but I would argue that it is objectively important to have some level of conservation and respect for the environment as a society because disregarding it could potentially have some devastating consequences. Anyway, the environment isn't one of my personal top concerns when so much of the world is battling poverty; not to mention that it would be very hard or maybe impossible to have a decent level of respect for the environment anywhere that capitalism rears its ugly head.

But politics aside, it is a beautiful poem.

[Vanguard1917]

By worship, I mean love. To enjoy nature

You can enjoy nature without romanticising it and while always bearing in mind that nature untamed or unprotected against is, like Skinz points out, destructive to human beings. I enjoy watching a pride of lions on the tv, but i would not like to be in the vicinity of one without a bunch of armed people who knew what they were doing.

[ZeroNowhere]

Many people enjoy nature's beauty, and I'm not sure where you would get the opposite impression. In fact, they probably appreciate it more inasmuch as they aren't in as much danger of being mutilated by it. On the other hand, I think that your suggestion that nature is to some degree 'harmonious' is somewhat insulting. The fields of birds and wild grass aren't dull and ordered gardens, and we're much better off for it. Similarly, beauty is a two-way process, hence on the one hand man's appropriation of nature and on the other the suffusing of nature with man, as it were man's active addition of man to nature just as much as the appropriation of nature by man. As Borges put it, "A writer — and, I believe, generally all persons — must think that whatever happens to him or her is a resource. All things have been given to us for a purpose, and an artist must feel this more intensely. All that happens to us, including our humiliations, our misfortunes, our embarrassments, all is given to us as raw material, as clay, so that we may shape our art."

As long as man views nature as a god, this simply expresses that nature stands above and governs man, and that this relationship is unequal, so that beauty and poesy may only take the form of man's inability to truly appropriate and mould nature; in other words, we have awe, yet awe precludes true appreciation, and the real, conscious suffusing of nature with humanity. In addition, we also have a relationship of dependence and hierarchy, with nature essentially being a granter of our needs (indeed, praying for Varuna for water, etc) whereas, "Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings admiring, asking and observing, there we enter the realm of Art and Science." In addition, nature in fact appears mysterious in a lesser manner, rather than as an actual enigma, as our concern is not so much to investigate and comprehend it so much as to survive upon it; on the other hand, once nature becomes an object of the free exercise of curiosity and imagination, it ceases to be a God. One may compare here the appreciation of the world held by a young child (Look at the huge tree, and isn't that the goldenest butterfly!) compared with an older poet, generally.

"In the red west the twisted moon is low,
And on the bubbles there are half-lit stars.
Music and twilight; and the deep blue flow
Of water; and the watching fire of Mars.
The deep fish slipping through the moonlit bars,
Make death a thing of sweet dreams, [...]"

Certainly, it's true that capital suppresses Shelley's "rustic Miltons" (not that feudalism cultivated a poetic spirit in the majority of peasants), but that hardly justifies simple nostalgia, or phraseology about 'worshipping' nature.


You mean you love all the famine, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, landslides, floods, droughts, the endless list of diseases and viruses and the cornucopia of dangerous animals that kill people every year?
To be fair, there's plenty to like about nature. Although you're right, 'worship' of nature would entail worship of these things just as much as of sunset upon the ley.

[Hit The North]

You mean like the genocide of native Americans, aborigines etc. etc.?:rolleyes: Human advancement indeed, only countless humans were wiped out for this.

Hypocrisy much??? As a self-described "Saddamist", you obviously approve the indiscriminate gassing of Kurdish civilians! And what was that for the advancement of?

Before you come here pontificating about the harmony of nature and being in touch with humane values, you need to sort out your politics, mate. :mad:

Why you haven't been restricted yet for holding a reactionary ideology remains a deep mystery.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://blog.makezine.com/how_scientists_view_the_world.jpg

There are ways of appreciating the beauty and complexity of nature without succumbing to romanticist piffle in it's multifarious forms.

Also note that any reasonable definition of nature means that we can never "lose touch" with it - if termites and termite mounds are natural, then so are humans and their cities.

[Ele'ill]

There are ways of appreciating the beauty and complexity of nature without succumbing to romanticist piffle in it's multifarious forms.

Also note that any reasonable definition of nature means that we can never "lose touch" with it - if termites and termite mounds are natural, then so are humans and their cities.

It's just that termites have yet to destroy the planet while making their homes.

[Meridian]

http://blog.makezine.com/how_scientists_view_the_world.jpg

There are ways of appreciating the beauty and complexity of nature without succumbing to romanticist piffle in it's multifarious forms.

Also note that any reasonable definition of nature means that we can never "lose touch" with it - if termites and termite mounds are natural, then so are humans and their cities.
One would think there were better ways to enjoy nature than seeing numbers, letters and arrows everywhere. What a nuisance.

I think both the general mantras being uttered here are moronic. Humans are neither "supposed to be the master of nature" nor is 'nature' something to be worshiped, as if it even could be distinguished from ourselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's just that termites have yet to destroy the planet while making their homes.

That's an exaggeration and you know it. Our environmental impact is greater, but even in the event of a global thermonuclear war the biosphere would remain viable. That's not to say that we can't do better, but I don't think such hyperbole is accurate or helpful.


One would think there were better ways to enjoy nature than seeing numbers, letters and arrows everywhere. What a nuisance.

A disappointing attitude to real knowledge.


I think both the general mantras being uttered here are moronic. Humans are neither "supposed to be the master of nature" nor is 'nature' something to be worshiped, as if it even could be distinguished from ourselves.

Humans are not supposed to be anything, we set our own goals generally speaking. Mastery of nature helps.

[Ele'ill]

That's an exaggeration and you know it. Our environmental impact is greater, but even in the event of a global thermonuclear war the biosphere would remain viable. That's not to say that we can't do better, but I don't think such hyperbole is accurate or helpful.


Are you saying that human industry hasn't destroyed the planet and caused mass extinctions?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you saying that human industry hasn't destroyed the planet and caused mass extinctions?

I'm pretty sure the emergence of a global civilisation constitutes a mass extinction event. But the biosphere has survived plenty of those before, and we have the ability to influence events in a more favourable direction, unlike say, the dinosaurs.

[Ele'ill]

I'm pretty sure the emergence of a global civilisation constitutes a mass extinction event.

But my point was simply that termites haven't done this.




But the biosphere has survived plenty of those before

I just don't like living things being destroyed for luxury.



and we have the ability to influence events in a more favourable direction, unlike say, the dinosaurs.

So when does it start?

[bcbm]

That's an exaggeration and you know it. Our environmental impact is greater, but even in the event of a global thermonuclear war the biosphere would remain viable. That's not to say that we can't do better, but I don't think such hyperbole is accurate or helpful.

the biosphere and even humanity will be here awhile (unless a runaway greenhouse effect is sparked) but we are rapidly making the planet unlivable for a civilization of our type. our interests aside, we are doing a tremendous amount of damage to the planet's environments and other inhabitants. so, perhaps a bit of exaggeration, but only a bit.


Humans are not supposed to be anything, we set our own goals generally speaking. Mastery of nature helps.i like marx's idea of "a humanization of nature and a naturalization of man." our role ought to be stewards and partners with nature, not masters.


I'm pretty sure the emergence of a global civilisation constitutes a mass extinction event. But the biosphere has survived plenty of those before, and we have the ability to influence events in a more favourable direction, unlike say, the dinosaurs.

its strange to me that someone so enamored of science would glibly dismiss the extinction of millions of plants and animals which existed nowhere else in the universe as far as we know.

[gorillafuck]

I don't see how mastery of nature and coexisting with nature are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialists who have such a technology fetishism that they've managed to convince themselves that the world isn't having irreparable damage done to it are nutcases, but then again we can't let human health and lives be governed entirely by nature.

[Widerstand]

I just don't like living things being destroyed for luxury.


It's not that. It's periodic.

The emergence of reptiles (dinosaurs) as the dominant class likely went along with wiping out a whole lot more animals than were averagely wiped out during the time preceding this emergence. Similarly did the emergence of mammals as the dominant class go along with the mass extinction of dinosaurs.

In a similar fashion, the emergence of humans as the dominant species goes along with mass extinctions. As some have suggested, mass extinctions are common on earth, and we might be in the midst of one.

[ZeroNowhere]

Engels' concept of 'mastery over nature' was essentially understanding nature and working with it towards conscious ends. I'm not sure that most people here have too much of a problem with scientific knowledge of nature and the application of such in a conscious manner. In fact, this sort of mastery is a necessary part of tool usage, inasmuch as creating tools is precisely moulding nature in accordance with consciously chosen ends (whether we be creating medicines, solar panels, nuclear plants, guns, or whatever else), and the use of tools on nature to produce use-values for consumption is also an expression of this sort of mastery. As we are reliant on continuously moulding nature consciously in definite (but evolving) ways, we have to understand it, in the same way as a painter who wishes to continually make certain shades through mixing colours must know which colours combined make which shades, and later on be able to measure the proportions in which the colours are combined, etc.

As such, I'm not sure that many would necessarily oppose this sort of mastery, unless they were misanthropes, etc.

[Milk Sheikh]

Hypocrisy much??? As a self-described "Saddamist", you obviously approve the indiscriminate gassing of Kurdish civilians! And what was that for the advancement of?


Here's Saddam playing Macbeth:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200602/14/images/sadam.jpg
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to topic, thanks for all the replies. I understand that development is crucial but not at the expense of human (and animal/plant) lives. One cannot destroy the environment under the pretext of progress.

[Vanguard1917]

Are you saying that human industry hasn't destroyed the planet

Of course it hasn't, at least not from a human perspective. In fact, it has done the opposite: it has improved the planet for human beings, by turning it overall into a much better place in which to live, or at least by providing us with the tools with which to do this. For those who are able to enjoy its benefits, industry has made the world into a place far better suited to human inhabitation than it was ever before. This isn't to say that the development of industry has not been riddlled with the contradictions inherent in the system through which such developments came about, but it is clearly idiotic to argue, as many greens do, that industrialisation was some kind of regrettable phase in the "earth's history".

[scarletghoul]

It's just that termites have yet to destroy the planet while making their homes.
I'd be surprised if ants and termites hadn't radically altered the world and probably contributed to the extinction of some other species.

Why is it 'natural' when they alter the world and 'unnatural' when we do it ? The whole 'man vs nature' is a big silly false dichotomy.

Yes, we should of course avoid destroying things in the world which are useful resources or just nice to have around, but we should not have any illusions about it forming some kind of magical harmonious great untouchable fairy forest outside the realm of humanity.

[maskerade]

culture/nature, or society/nature is a false dichotomy. we are not separate from nature, we are part of nature. thus it follows that nature itself does not really exist.

however, as hippie-esque as it might sound, i staunchly defend the idea that this planet does not belong to us humans. there is nothing wrong with cities and villages etc, but there is something wrong with destroying large parts of the Amazon, home to a large diversity of life, including humans. Why should we destroy their environment (and i mean their conception of the world around them) and enforce our's upon them?

technology and development in all fairness, but it is a means to an end not an end in itself, and those means should not include reckless destruction of "nature" (in the conventional usage of the word, if you will)

[scarletghoul]

Imagine if some bees turned into 'environmentalists' and told all the other bees to stop harvesting pollen as it is interfering and harmful to nature. We would have no honey

[maskerade]

Imagine if some bees turned into 'environmentalists' and told all the other bees to stop harvesting pollen as it is interfering and harmful to nature. We would have no honey

how exactly is harvesting pollen either interfering or harmful to nature? it's a perfect example of a sustainable activity...

[ZeroNowhere]

culture/nature, or society/nature is a false dichotomy. we are not separate from nature, we are part of nature. thus it follows that nature itself does not really exist.If nature does not really exist, then it follows that we are not a part of it.

Generally, the way I view it, nature is to all living beings what society is to its human members, namely a sum of interrelations.

[Meridian]

A disappointing attitude to real knowledge.
I expressed no attitude towards knowledge, I expressed an attitude towards the enjoyment of life with numbers and letters scribbled over everything. But, to each their own.


Humans are not supposed to be anything, we set our own goals generally speaking. Mastery of nature helps.
I see as a goal the continued existence of the environment of the planet that fostered the human race, and which is to my knowledge the only confirmed source of life. I am not sure "mastery of nature" is a useful picture, or leads to a useful discussion, compared to the following; "protection from disease", "safety from environmental disasters", "extraction of natural resources", "long-term ecological damage", "sustainable source", etc.

[maskerade]

If nature does not really exist, then it follows that we are not a part of it.

Generally, the way I view it, nature is to all living beings what society is to its human members, namely a sum of interrelations.

I meant nature in the sense that we tend to think of it as separate to humans. That's the nature that doesn't exist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some people really have a bizarre, knee-jerk reaction to any thread that even mentions "nature" or "the environment". I guess that it's a response to the reactionary attitudes of environmentalists, but that's no reason to have such a vulgar mentality when it comes to having a nice quality of life by preserving a least some of nature's primordial state. I personally love to walk in the mountains, or go swimming in a body of natural water, or just breathe clean air. Humanity could probably survive a major cataclysm and still exist, and the Earth could probably remain inhabitable, but obviously survival isn't what we're trying to achieve; a good quality of life for everyone is. And I simply don't see how that's achievable without a semblance of respect for/preservation for the concept that we refer to as "nature".

I find this attitude of "GWAR! SCREW NATURE, SHIT AIN'T EVEN REAL, PAVE EVERYTHING!" and "WE MUST DEFEAT NATURE WITH SCIENCE!" amusing.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't see how mastery of nature and coexisting with nature are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialists who have such a technology fetishism that they've managed to convince themselves that the world isn't having irreparable damage done to it are nutcases, but then again we can't let human health and lives be governed entirely by nature.

:tt1: Technology!

I should only care about this 'irreparable damage', if it is causing harm to humanity. The damage that will be caused to the human population by the onset of global warming is the only justification for making industry more 'green'. It is in our best interest to make industry eventually environmentally-sustainable, and we will only do so, because it is in our best interest. I would hate to see the human population weakened and impoverished, just for the hedonistic pleasures of some nature fetishists. The aim and goal of any revolutionary government should be (from an utilitarian standpoint) the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain - and it is obvious that technology is most pertinent way to meet that standard. Because, first off: only by the increases in technology, will man be able to free himself from the drudging monotony of forced labor, and be allocated complete autonomy over his life. Most importantly however, the increases in medical technology have been instrumental in alleviating diseases, pain, and other forms of human suffering - surely the massive increases in human life expectancy are something to praise rather than criticize...


Do you see nature's beauty? Do you actually feel it? When you see a tree, is it just a tree - or is it beauty itself in the form of a tree?

Enjoy Nature! I am glad to say that I have entirely lost that faculty. People tell us that Art makes us love Nature more than we loved her before; that it reveals her secrets to us; and that after a careful study of Corot and Constable we see things in her that had escaped our observation. My own experience is that the more we study Art, the less we care for Nature. What Art really reveals to us is Nature's lack of design, her curious crudities, her extraordinary monotony, her absolutely unfinished condition. Nature has good intentions, of course, but, as Aristotle once said, she cannot carry them out. When I look at a landscape I cannot help seeing all its defects. It is fortunate for us, however, that Nature is so imperfect, as otherwise we should have no art at all. Art is our spirited protest, our gallant attempt to teach Nature her proper place. As for the infinite variety of Nature, that is a pure myth. It is not to be found in Nature herself. It resides in the imagination, or fancy, or cultivated blindness of the man who looks at her.

But Nature is so uncomfortable. Grass is hard and lumpy and damp, and full of dreadful black insects. Why, even Morris's poorest workman could make you a more comfortable seat than the whole of Nature can. Nature pales before the furniture of `the street which from Oxford has borrowed its name,' as the poet you love so much once vilely phrased it. I don't complain. If Nature had been comfortable, mankind would never have invented architecture, and I prefer houses to the open air. In a house we all feel of the proper proportions. Everything is subordinated to us, fashioned for our use and our pleasure. Egotism itself, which is so necessary to a proper sense of human dignity, is entirely the result of indoor life. Out of doors one becomes abstract and impersonal. One's individuality absolutely leaves one. And then Nature is so indifferent, so unappreciative. Whenever I am walking in the park here, I always feel that I am no more to her than the cattle that browse on the slope, or the burdock that blooms in the ditch.

Consider the matter from a scientific or a metaphysical point of view, and you will find that I am right. For what is Nature? Nature is no great mother who has borne us. She is our creation. It is in our brain that she quickens to life. Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the Arts that have influenced us. To look at a thing is very different from seeing a thing. One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. Then, and then only, does it come into existence. At present, people see fogs, not because there are fogs, but because poets and painters have taught them the mysterious loveliness of such effects. There may have been fogs for centuries in London. I dare say there were. But no one saw them, and so we do not know anything about them. They did not exist till Art had invented them. - Oscar Wilde

[Ele'ill]

It's not that. It's periodic.

The emergence of reptiles (dinosaurs) as the dominant class likely went along with wiping out a whole lot more animals than were averagely wiped out during the time preceding this emergence. Similarly did the emergence of mammals as the dominant class go along with the mass extinction of dinosaurs.

In a similar fashion, the emergence of humans as the dominant species goes along with mass extinctions. As some have suggested, mass extinctions are common on earth, and we might be in the midst of one.


Are you seriously comparing a natural event in the biosphere- being a dominant species creating an extinction or two with the fallout of human industry? The two are not comparable- an asteroid striking the earth and causing mass extinction is. That is not sustainable for obvious reasons.

To suggest that because humans are 'natural' and thus their actions whatever it may be are 'ok with the biosphere because it will always readjust' is absurd.

[Widerstand]

Are you seriously comparing a natural event in the biosphere- being a dominant species creating an extinction or two with the fallout of human industry? The two are not comparable- an asteroid striking the earth and causing mass extinction is. That is not sustainable for obvious reasons.

To suggest that because humans are 'natural' and thus their actions whatever it may be are 'ok with the biosphere because it will always readjust' is absurd.

What causes it isn't so much the issue. My point is that mathematical evidence exists suggesting that periodic mass extinctions are a necessity in biosystems, even though what triggers them can widely vary.

[Ele'ill]

Of course it hasn't, at least not from a human perspective.

So you're saying that industry hasn't created very potent problems for vast populations of humans?


In fact, it has done the opposite: it has improved the planet for human beings, by turning it overall into a much better place in which to live, or at least by providing us with the tools with which to do this. For those who are able to enjoy its benefits, industry has made the world into a place far better suited to human inhabitation than it was ever before. This isn't to say that the development of industry has not been riddlled with the contradictions inherent in the system through which such developments came about, but it is clearly idiotic to argue, as many greens do, that industrialisation was some kind of regrettable phase in the "earth's history".

To be honest with you humans have yet to prove that they can competently utilize what they've created without killing humans and other creatures in the process. This is not an acceptable trade off- we can do a lot better than this and I believe you need to seriously reconsider the true impact of industry- we're not going to have anything worth fighting for or keeping if we rely soley on the fact that 'our industry has made earth more inhabitable now for some' when ten years down the road serious problems begin to appear (as they have thus far).

A hunter gatherer society would suck and so did Bladerunner. Fuck that.

[Ele'ill]

What causes it isn't so much the issue. My point is that mathematical evidence exists suggesting that periodic mass extinctions are a necessity in biosystems, even though what triggers them can widely vary.

But humans are not operating within the biosphere as those other creatures were. There's a huge difference and the 'mass extinction' is being caused by intensified deregulated industry because of demand and it is occurring over a longer period of time- It does matter why- our taking of space can cause extinction through displacement but when coupled with pollution in its various forms (toxic dump, sonar, radio waves, etc..) over fishing, deforestation etc it certainly has the potential to cause irreversible damage to the biosphere.

[Widerstand]

I don't see the difference? As I said, it doesn't matter. There is this trend and it exists and no one except you ever talks about the specific reasons, because frankly they don't matter. Mass extinctions will happen one way or another, and no matter how we cause them they'll still have remotely the same effect on the biosystem unless we were to wipe out all life on earth, which I seriously doubt we are able to.

[Widerstand]

I don't see the difference? As I said, it doesn't matter. There is this trend and it exists and no one except you ever talks about the specific reasons, because frankly they don't matter. Mass extinctions will happen one way or another, and no matter how we cause them they'll still have remotely the same effect on the biosystem unless we were to wipe out all life on earth, which I seriously doubt we are able to.

nevermind, that's not fully true, as it is assuming we wipe out species at random.

If we are to wipe out certain species crucial to the ecosystem, which we do, then we might face more severe problems of ecosystem imbalance.

[Ele'ill]

nevermind, that's not fully true, as it is assuming we wipe out species at random.

If we are to wipe out certain species crucial to the ecosystem, which we do, then we might face more severe problems of ecosystem imbalance.

Most species are crucial to their given ecosystem and I agree that if one species were to become extinct that another can eventually fill it's niche but the situation isn't one species 'not being able to hack it' we're talking about the living conditions within the ecosystems being altered to the point where multiple species are dying off.

Yes, in 100 years an ecosystem might start repairing or be half way repaired or hey, even all the way repaired but one ecosystem is affected by the collapse of another and you end up with a lot of damage that needs a lot of repair time that we can't afford to give it since we rely so heavily on industry to survive.

[Widerstand]

Most species are crucial to their given ecosystem and I agree that if one species were to become extinct that another can eventually fill it's niche but the situation isn't one species 'not being able to hack it' we're talking about the living conditions within the ecosystems being altered to the point where multiple species are dying off.

While basically true, you got to consider that ecosystems are aristocratic small-world networks. There are a lot of species with very few links to others (in terms of predator/prey or other forms of interaction), and very few which interact with a fucking lot of other species in the network. If take out only a few of those super-connected species, the damage to the ecosystem is far more severe than if take out large numbers of barely-connected ones.



Yes, in 100 years an ecosystem might start repairing or be half way repaired or hey, even all the way repaired but one ecosystem is affected by the collapse of another and you end up with a lot of damage that needs a lot of repair time that we can't afford to give it since we rely so heavily on industry to survive.

That's mostly a human problem though, which is what I and others were trying to get at.

The point about about environmentalism isn't that some metaphysical "nature" needs to be preserved, but rather that humanity faces severe consequences from throwing the ecosystem out of balance.

[Ele'ill]

The point about about environmentalism isn't that some metaphysical "nature" needs to be preserved, but rather that humanity faces severe consequences from throwing the ecosystem out of balance.

I'm not arguing otherwise although I'd add in that animals are sentient and our mistreatment of them is akin to our mistreatment of our own species. There needs to be more thought put into action if the only reason not to wipe a living organism out of existence is because it might affect us later. It implies that people are aware of a specific industrial action that is causing deaths but are ok with it- what needs to be determined is if that industry is worth extinction(s)

[Magón]

I'm not arguing otherwise although I'd add in that animals are sentient and our mistreatment of them is akin to our mistreatment of our own species. There needs to be more thought put into action if the only reason not to wipe a living organism out of existence is because it might affect us later. It implies that people are aware of a specific industrial action that is causing deaths but are ok with it- what needs to be determined is if that industry is worth extinction(s)

You could always find a cleaner way to keep that industry functioning. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all this excess shit killing off animal species.

[Ele'ill]

You could always find a cleaner way to keep that industry functioning. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all this excess shit killing off animal species.

It depends on the industry and will 'cleaner' be enough?

[Tomhet]

Nature is beautiful, I don't really understand the hate..
If it benefits humans in the end rather then be used for unnesesary tasks, I'm for it's destruction, I'm fairly neutral on the subject of environmentalism..

[Milk Sheikh]

Mass extinctions will happen one way or another.

Hitler might've had the same idea regarding certain ethnic groups.:rolleyes:

[Widerstand]

Hitler might've had the same idea regarding certain ethnic groups.:rolleyes:

Except that ethnic groups aren't species, that Hitler had no mathematical proof to back it up, and that I'm not talking about forcefully enacting it.

It's fun that you bring it up though, I'm sure your idol Saddam was a lot better than Hitler in that regard :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Written by Wordsworth more than 200 years ago, but it makes more sense now that capitalism is destroying the environment and the common man, as a result, is losing his connection with nature:

The World Is Too Much with us
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
The Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.
------------------------------------------------
Beautiful! Sad but beautiful!

Sorry can't resist this quote:

At twilight, nature is not without loveliness, though perhaps its chief use is to illustrate quotations from the poets.

Mr. Wilde's serious point here is that the "civilization"/"nature" divide is an artificially created one - man created "nature" as a response to the rise of modern cities.

I think after a revolution, most people would not want to live in cities as they exist now, and so without profit driving society, I think people would probably live in a more "balanced" urban setting where natural feature, parks and so on would be more integrated into the city. This has all sorts of benifits because it would reduce the temperature in urban areas and provide a better living experience for people. I also imagine that workers would figure out a better way to handle crop production that doesn't involve mass tracts of land devoted to mono-cultures which produce food which is then shipped across the country or over the ocean. Urbanized farming, large in-door farming within urban areas could free up tons of farmland which could then revert to a uncultivated full ecosystem.

[Ele'ill]

Sorry can't resist this quote:


Mr. Wilde's serious point here is that the "civilization"/"nature" divide is an artificially created one - man created "nature" as a response to the rise of modern cities.


The increase of industry and the expansion of cities created a bold contrast that was observed- as were the negative consequences and actual impact.




I think after a revolution, most people would not want to live in cities as they exist now, and so without profit driving society, I think people would probably live in a more "balanced" urban setting where natural feature, parks and so on would be more integrated into the city. This has all sorts of benifits because it would reduce the temperature in urban areas and provide a better living experience for people. I also imagine that workers would figure out a better way to handle crop production that doesn't involve mass tracts of land devoted to mono-cultures which produce food which is then shipped across the country or over the ocean. Urbanized farming, large in-door farming within urban areas could free up tons of farmland which could then revert to a uncultivated full ecosystem.

Technocracy should be used to fiercely protect the natural world. It has the potential to do this while making life easier for every human on the planet. The 'natural world' and human needs come first- human wants- if not necessary and if generated from a harmful industry should be minimized or cut until a healthy approach can be adequately researched and then implemented.