3 ms·

> It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society To me, that is an indication that we need to change today's society, not a justifica

by user24 12y ago

> It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society To me, that is an indication that we need to change today's society, not a justification for doing nothing.

simonh 12y ago
Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature. They laid waste to continent sized forests (mostly using fire strip hunting - set fires to force game into a kill zone), wiped out hundreds of species of mega-fauna with over-hunting, created deserts through over-grazing. Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature. That depends on how one defines "balance with nature". We're just a species competing for resources with other species. To argue that what we do is anything but a normal survival strategy is to buy into a supernatural role for human beings on planet Earth. In fact we're a natural species, and we follow entirely predictable patterns of natural selection. > Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness. And? Is a farm distinct from an anthill, or is it a natural variation? We may see ourselves as exceptional, as separate from nature, but nature certainly doesn't see us that way.
  - simonh 12y ago
    I completely agree, we are natural creatures. That doesn't mean that wiping out species and destroying ecosystems by our activities is OK. In many cases it has long term detrimental consequences far in excess of the short term benefit of the economic activity causing the damage. Personally, I'm an advocate of factoring in the environmental costs of our economic activities and taking those costs into account. However the idea that we can live in balance without having an impact on the world around us is a fantasy.

by user24 12y ago

> It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society To me, that is an indication that we need to change today's society, not a justification for doing nothing.

simonh 12y ago

Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature. They laid waste to continent sized forests (mostly using fire strip hunting - set fires to force game into a kill zone), wiped out hundreds of species of mega-fauna with over-hunting, created deserts through over-grazing. Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lutusp 12y ago
> Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature. That depends on how one defines "balance with nature". We're just a species competing for resources with other species. To argue that what we do is anything but a normal survival strategy is to buy into a supernatural role for human beings on planet Earth. In fact we're a natural species, and we follow entirely predictable patterns of natural selection. > Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness. And? Is a farm distinct from an anthill, or is it a natural variation? We may see ourselves as exceptional, as separate from nature, but nature certainly doesn't see us that way.
- simonh 12y ago
  I completely agree, we are natural creatures. That doesn't mean that wiping out species and destroying ecosystems by our activities is OK. In many cases it has long term detrimental consequences far in excess of the short term benefit of the economic activity causing the damage. Personally, I'm an advocate of factoring in the environmental costs of our economic activities and taking those costs into account. However the idea that we can live in balance without having an impact on the world around us is a fantasy.