7 ms·
Something about this just really turns me off. I think it's the comments about indigenous people living without power. Returning to nature ideology seems to alw
by iamwpj 4y ago
Something about this just really turns me off. I think it's the comments about indigenous people living without power. Returning to nature ideology seems to always be appealing to city-dwellers. Previous humans didn't overcome nature or become "one with it". Nature killed them carelessly – unaware of their suffering or even their existence. The biggest advantage humans had over nature was our ability to go unnoticed. We didn't thrive; we survived. Would you use the homeless people scrabbling for limited supplies at the food kitchen as your motivation to go off grid?
I'm all for individual action in the face of climate change. I think people who practice having a minimal impact on their surroundings are more likely to take that mindset to their work and affect change in the world as a cohesive unit with a shared understanding. In that sense – well done to the author. I think we should advocate for thriving while having less of an affect on nature.
- matwood 4y agoA friend of mine often quips, "never forget that nature is always trying to kill you."
- micromacrofoot 4y agothat’s a little hyperbolic in the other direction though
- zdragnar 4y agoNot entirely wrong, though. Survival requires constant work- either by you, or by the community that supports you through things like providing regular fresh water, waste removal, heat, safe food to eat, and so forth.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoneither is entirely true because nature is life and death, both are inescapable - it sustains and neglects
- usefulcat 4y agoDestruction has always been easier/more likely than creation. Death is inescapable, life not so much.
- badpun 4y agoEvery seconds, bacteria and viruses enter you body (or try to), with the goal of feasting on your flesh. I don't think it's hyperbolic.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoright but our bodies also defend against these, life is also nature
- benj111 4y agoi disagree. theres a sweet spot between being completely divorced from nature, and being completely subject to it. Cities are divorced from nature, at least too much for my taste, and I don't that's conducive to understanding or respecting nature, which is what we need to start looking after and protecting it.
- danuker 4y agoOn the contrary, cities allow people to live efficiently. If you spread into suburbs and single-family housing, you need more area per person, motorized individual transport (because walking becomes impractical), more spread out roads and utility lines, and so on. Cities are not divorced from nature, they allow us to preserve it more easily.
- peatmoss 4y agoThis is correct, though paradoxically people who live in cities tend to use more energy in practice, largely due to the larger average wealth in the cities. That said, I (I think like you) believe cities are the solution. We just have to opt out of using our surplus wealth, borne of efficiency, for ecologically destructive purposes.
- mikodin 4y agoNothing is divorced from nature, we are nature. With that said, I think people who live in cities tend to feel plants, animals and ecosystems that are not ours less, and therefore we may be quite ignorant to the destruction we are causing. It's one thing to know in the mind that we are destroying other life forms and it's another to live in that destruction. Sure, depending on the measuring stick cities are more efficient. But I think most importantly, they likely aren't conducive to creating the sorts of empathy required for us to make decisions that are more in line with preserving other forms of life. I don't quite know the answer, like many things existential...it's complex, confusing, nuanced and hard to grasp. I hope that we figure it out and I hope that I answer the call within me to join in that figuring out.