3 ms·

So only non-human animals are allowed to interact with the environment? Humans are not part of nature?

by nzmsv 5y ago

npteljes 5y ago
Yes, I think this is the idea. That people go out in the nature, and want to see as few man-made stuff (or other people) as possible. I think it's especially bad in places where otherwise the nature seems undisturbed.
- nzmsv 5y ago
  This concept is a bit weird if you think about it though. This is about Homo sapiens enjoying a model (according to Homo sapiens) of a world where Homo sapiens does not exist. This model world is confined to precise borders defined by Homo sapiens and other Homo sapiens are expected to play along and maintain this illusion. We Homo sapiens call that "nature" and love to drive there in our cars and walk around.
  - npteljes 5y ago
    I agree, "nature", as we talk about it, is definitely a spectrum. Like how much "from scratch" people make a spaghetti for example. Is it from scratch if you buy the sauce? If you make the sauce from store bought tomato and sauce powder? Only if it's from tomato and spices that you mix yourself? Or only if the tomato is from your own garden? Definitely interesting to explore these boundaries.
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      The thing is, the argument against stacking rocks or playing music is intellectually dishonest. Other species have no qualms about modifying their environment. A crow on a tree won't shut up. A squirrel will not decide to carry a nut to a specific location in the name of sustainability. They are perfectly selfish and engaged in a war for survival. That is what species actually do, naturally. The people who are against music and cairns in parks are not protecting any natural law. They are protecting their specific terraforming project, a park. It is driven by a purely human concept of "sustainability" and cannot possibly be something that existed in a world without humans. Now, that is a nice terraforming project they are protecting (notice how "nice" is another human concept?) We also tend to spend a lot of energy protecting species that trigger the same neural pathways in our brains as human babies, even if the species would most likely go extinct without our intervention (pandas). What environmentalism actually does is act as a brake on our other terraforming projects, allowing us to go on terraforming longer and not turn our environment into something inhospitable. But even that is entirely anthropocentric.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
pdpi 5y ago
It’s polite to not redecorate somebody else’s home while you’re visiting. When you go to a park, you’re a guest at somebody else’s home.
- hammyhavoc 5y ago
  The same could be said of areas where we cut down all the trees and named streets after them.
- nzmsv 5y ago
  Sure, and I like my nature walks as much as the next person. I just find it weird that after pushing animals into what amounts to a reservation and doing as we please to the environment outside of these carefully drafted borders we worry so much about a stack of rocks. You know, a squirrel can carry an acorn around too and have an effect on where an oak tree will grow. The only way to not affect the environment is to not exist. The so-called home for these animals is as much our artificial creation as a factory or a nuclear power plant.

So only non-human animals are allowed to interact with the environment? Humans are not part of nature?

by nzmsv 5y ago

So only non-human animals are allowed to interact with the environment? Humans are not part of nature?

Yes, I think this is the idea. That people go out in the nature, and want to see as few man-made stuff (or other people) as possible. I think it's especially bad in places where otherwise the nature seems undisturbed.

nzmsv 5y ago
This concept is a bit weird if you think about it though. This is about Homo sapiens enjoying a model (according to Homo sapiens) of a world where Homo sapiens does not exist. This model world is confined to precise borders defined by Homo sapiens and other Homo sapiens are expected to play along and maintain this illusion. We Homo sapiens call that "nature" and love to drive there in our cars and walk around.
- npteljes 5y ago
  I agree, "nature", as we talk about it, is definitely a spectrum. Like how much "from scratch" people make a spaghetti for example. Is it from scratch if you buy the sauce? If you make the sauce from store bought tomato and sauce powder? Only if it's from tomato and spices that you mix yourself? Or only if the tomato is from your own garden? Definitely interesting to explore these boundaries.
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    The thing is, the argument against stacking rocks or playing music is intellectually dishonest. Other species have no qualms about modifying their environment. A crow on a tree won't shut up. A squirrel will not decide to carry a nut to a specific location in the name of sustainability. They are perfectly selfish and engaged in a war for survival. That is what species actually do, naturally. The people who are against music and cairns in parks are not protecting any natural law. They are protecting their specific terraforming project, a park. It is driven by a purely human concept of "sustainability" and cannot possibly be something that existed in a world without humans. Now, that is a nice terraforming project they are protecting (notice how "nice" is another human concept?) We also tend to spend a lot of energy protecting species that trigger the same neural pathways in our brains as human babies, even if the species would most likely go extinct without our intervention (pandas). What environmentalism actually does is act as a brake on our other terraforming projects, allowing us to go on terraforming longer and not turn our environment into something inhospitable. But even that is entirely anthropocentric.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

pdpi 5y ago

It’s polite to not redecorate somebody else’s home while you’re visiting. When you go to a park, you’re a guest at somebody else’s home.

hammyhavoc 5y ago
The same could be said of areas where we cut down all the trees and named streets after them.
nzmsv 5y ago
Sure, and I like my nature walks as much as the next person. I just find it weird that after pushing animals into what amounts to a reservation and doing as we please to the environment outside of these carefully drafted borders we worry so much about a stack of rocks. You know, a squirrel can carry an acorn around too and have an effect on where an oak tree will grow. The only way to not affect the environment is to not exist. The so-called home for these animals is as much our artificial creation as a factory or a nuclear power plant.