4 ms·

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

by 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]

by nzmsv 5y ago

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]