3 ms·
Firstly, I absolutely agree with both people here. Industrial agriculture is large-scale enough to be able to use everything with extreme efficiency. Secondly,
by kamray23 3y ago
Firstly, I absolutely agree with both people here. Industrial agriculture is large-scale enough to be able to use everything with extreme efficiency. Secondly, modern industrial agricultural practices result in the transformation of nature into an unsustainable hell-scape which will collapse in on itself within a few centuries at the latest.
But I don't think you should consider humans as separate from nature, there is evil to being artificial and there is no evil to sometimes going against nature. Humans are, by their nature, a species who take natural fruits and labour upon them to transform them, to give them a new use-value. That is a, if not even the, universal constant which has held through every age of human (pre)history. Humans, just as bees or termites or elephants or trees, transform nature by our nature. Everything natural is artificial and everything artificial is natural. To transform nature, to bend it and to change it is our species being, it is part of our role in nature to transform it as do countless other species. However, unlike those guided by pure instinct, we have both the ability to imagine and project through labour that ideal into reality. Importantly, that's not really any more artificial than a beehive is, artificial is not a very well defined concept or in any way scientifically useful. Once again, it is part of our natural role, our nature, to transform nature around us. When we do transform nature in major ways, we speak for the trees, as much as destroy them. However, our societal development has led us into a transformation of nature which is wasteful and unsustainable. These are very scientifically useful concepts and things like sustainability can be experimented upon and proven. Imagining alternative transformations is the first step to projecting them into reality, to transforming nature once again in a way which has a long-term benefit for us all. There do however exist major economic barriers which can never be broken which prohibit permaculture on any real scale, though that's only true as long as the economy is as it is now. Beside the point for now. My point is that it is not useful to consider ideal and badly defined concepts like artificial and natural and a struggle between the two. It is much more useful to think in terms of our nature, how our nature and labour is governed by our society, how by our nature of transforming nature that leads to the current unsustainable mode of life, and then think about what needs to be done within that more explanative framework to imagine not only unreachable ideals but to project them into reachable ideals in the real, material world.
- dogcomplex 3y agoWe are nearing, if not already well past, the inflection point where solar panels powering industrial chemical sugar production can make sucrose and feed plants (and therefore animals) better than the plants would naturally produce themselves using chlorophyl with the same sunlight. Rewilding - bringing artificial human-made processes to grow thriving natural environments - is something we should definitely consider. We are capable of creating abundance beyond what nature provides alone
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CapstanRoller 3y ago>But I don't think you should consider humans as separate from nature I do consider humans to be part of nature. My point is that the dysfunctional processes we set up distance us from nature, try to attack nature — we kill bees with pesticides, then talk about inventing robot bees to replace them. It's insane. Permaculture is based on an explicit assertion that we must pay attention to existing ecosystem features and work within them rather than against them.