3 ms·

> unless you believe in blood and soil Not true, there are obviously other ways. There is an intuitive distinction between living in harmony with natural syste

> unless you believe in blood and soil Not true, there are obviously other ways. There is an intuitive distinction between living in harmony with natural systems and simply dominating them with technology. That is all you have to believe, it doesn't have to be grounded in ethnonationalism. Humans are unquestionably part of the environment, and everything humans do bends the environment to their will, but it would clearly be at odds with how we use words to argue that say a nuclear power station is just as much "part of the ecology" as cultivation of soil.

RugnirViking 2mo ago
> distinction between natural systems and simply dominating them with technology No? There's a rhetorical distinction, there isn't a physical distinction. It's like holistic medicine vs modern medicine, or wellness vs health, or human-centered design vs regular design, or chemical-free food vs regular food Any given thing is one or the other of these soley based on your perspective of it. Im sending this message to you right now by performing a ritual on a object made of rocks some guy found in the ground
- tkel 2mo ago
  Everything is nature , but clearly human society is also distinct. Both can be true. Some anthropologist philosophers have referred to this as "first nature" and "second nature", second nature being human society which is also part of first nature but distinct from it.
  - suddenlybananas 2mo ago
    But you're making out that indigenous people are part of this "first nature" rather than the "second nature", while industrial civilisation is strictly "second nature" which is frankly racist.
    - tkel 2mo ago
      The 201 definition is that second nature is a realm of development beyond the bio-social realm, that tends to form into institutions that have their own methods and rate of development and change beyond biological evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutual aid, etc). Bands, clans, tribes, federations, nations, etc. Other animals such as orcas also have been shown to have societies, language, culture, and history that is passed onto children. You could perhaps say that is also second nature. Call it what you want, but clearly modern human society is distinct in that it stands above (quite literally in the form of cities) and uniquely has the ability to threaten the rest of life on the planet. While at the same time being part of nature. Humans are part of the surrounding ecology whether we recognize it or not, as others have noted in this thread. The difference is many indigenous societies have tended to recognize it and integrate it into socio-cultural practices as a necessary part of survival in their local ecology, while our modern human society mostly does not. Consider the Kucadikadi people of now-Mono Lake , whose autonym literally means "eaters of the brine fly pupae". That is how closely their society, culture, and language is related to their local ecology, which "evolved" (in the 2nd nature sense) out of thousands of years of human society development and survival in that place. Notably their society has not developed to threaten or extinquish the brine flies on which they depend.
- tempfile 2mo ago
  Of course there isn't a physical distinction. This is a bit like saying there isn't a difference between a novel and a poem, because they're just words on a page. The distinction is nonphysical, but it is also obviously not rhetorical either. I said "intuitive" distinction, I'm not sure why you didn't criticise that directly since it admits that the distinction is not completely precise. What exactly are you doubting? Is the word "harmony" meaningless gibberish in your opinion? Are there any nonphysical words you admit are meaningful?

RugnirViking 2mo ago

> distinction between natural systems and simply dominating them with technology No? There's a rhetorical distinction, there isn't a physical distinction. It's like holistic medicine vs modern medicine, or wellness vs health, or human-centered design vs regular design, or chemical-free food vs regular food Any given thing is one or the other of these soley based on your perspective of it. Im sending this message to you right now by performing a ritual on a object made of rocks some guy found in the ground

tkel 2mo ago
Everything is nature , but clearly human society is also distinct. Both can be true. Some anthropologist philosophers have referred to this as "first nature" and "second nature", second nature being human society which is also part of first nature but distinct from it.
- suddenlybananas 2mo ago
  But you're making out that indigenous people are part of this "first nature" rather than the "second nature", while industrial civilisation is strictly "second nature" which is frankly racist.
  - tkel 2mo ago
    The 201 definition is that second nature is a realm of development beyond the bio-social realm, that tends to form into institutions that have their own methods and rate of development and change beyond biological evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutual aid, etc). Bands, clans, tribes, federations, nations, etc. Other animals such as orcas also have been shown to have societies, language, culture, and history that is passed onto children. You could perhaps say that is also second nature. Call it what you want, but clearly modern human society is distinct in that it stands above (quite literally in the form of cities) and uniquely has the ability to threaten the rest of life on the planet. While at the same time being part of nature. Humans are part of the surrounding ecology whether we recognize it or not, as others have noted in this thread. The difference is many indigenous societies have tended to recognize it and integrate it into socio-cultural practices as a necessary part of survival in their local ecology, while our modern human society mostly does not. Consider the Kucadikadi people of now-Mono Lake , whose autonym literally means "eaters of the brine fly pupae". That is how closely their society, culture, and language is related to their local ecology, which "evolved" (in the 2nd nature sense) out of thousands of years of human society development and survival in that place. Notably their society has not developed to threaten or extinquish the brine flies on which they depend.
tempfile 2mo ago
Of course there isn't a physical distinction. This is a bit like saying there isn't a difference between a novel and a poem, because they're just words on a page. The distinction is nonphysical, but it is also obviously not rhetorical either. I said "intuitive" distinction, I'm not sure why you didn't criticise that directly since it admits that the distinction is not completely precise. What exactly are you doubting? Is the word "harmony" meaningless gibberish in your opinion? Are there any nonphysical words you admit are meaningful?