In Harmony With Nature

Neither do I. I'm a human from civilization and I don't believe it's the one right way for people to live. You seem to be a person from civilization too (using a fancy computer and all. Back my day...) and you seem strongly opposed to civilization. There's 2 people to prove your point wrong.

(And how do you know ants don't do that? )

Wendaline the explanation to this would take FAR to long to post. If you like I can PM you why you might not believe it but you still express it. If this conversation is about right and wrong points well I can only point at the handfuls of human cultures Civilization has either killed of or assimilated into its self, not to mention the 200 species we kill a day that make your point superfluous. But you're very right. You and I dont believe that Civilization is the one right way to live. If only the world was made up of just 2 people.... :dry: I'm no ant expert but again pointing out the few exceptions does not disprove a point.

True, except I think the theory is that humans, cats, and dogs came together because it was mutually beneficial. We used cats to help with pest control, and they used us for food and protection. It's not that they adapted to us, it's that we both had something to offer each other. Oh, and dogs and cats who are cast out really don't remember their wild side.

You cant just disagree with my point and expect it to be true. :whistle: What proof do you have that cats and dogs don't remember their wild side? I've seen many strays pick up foraging in order to survive. They no longer expect food to be give instead search for it. As I said cats and dogs are exceptions since they are domestic. Racoons, birds, squirrels, deer, antelope, spiders, and yes even ants are still considered wild animals and have adapted to Civilization because thats what animals do adapt or die. Again there are many animals that did not adapt and have died.

New York City parks? :blink: Well you've done it I'm very much wrong. This one small section of land that allows for a few animals to live completely negates the thousands of square feet of pavement, building, and parking lots.

As for the Prairie dogs... I've never seen a Prairie dogs deforest a huge stretch of land regardless of whats living there and build a home. If something trespasses into its home the Prairie dogs might kill it but it surely will not hunt down and exterminate the species of the trespassers in order to insure that its home is never invaded again.

Proving that Civilization believes it is the one right way to live

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He wasn't looking for a new continent he was looking for a sorter way to reach India. When he arrived on a new continent he found that he people there were hardly using the land they were on, so he conquered and enslaved them. He never intended to sail to India and enslave them. WHY? because they were already Civilized.
Another example

The first country the Nazis captured was their own. Wendaline just like you and I dont believe Civilization is the one right way to live; not every one living in Nazi owed land believed or liked the Nazis. But what were they to do? Leave their home land? Yes you either leave and become a traitor or stay and work for Nazis because your friends and family also worked for them.

FINALLY SOME ONE ASKS A QUESTON! :woohoo: " Leave it for what? Leave it completely? "

No Wendaline I would never suggest leaving everything completely especially if we can help it. Technology is very useful and though I romanticize tribalism there is no way 7 billion of us can go back to hunting and gathering. What I suggest is that we look at Civilization and change the harmful aspects of it. We don't have to leave everything behind but one thing is for sure things will NOT be the same. We talk about technology and fancy our selves inventors so...INVENT! :laugh: A new way of life that allows us to keep our technology without killing 200 species a day.
That answers "leave it completely?" now "leave it for what?" you ask. I actually dont know. Thats jumping way to far ahead of our selves. What I can tell you is that the people of the Middle ages didn't think they were in the middle of anything. If you ask them what the Renaissance would look like they wouldn't be able to tell you let alone the Industrial Revolution. So cant tell you what we're GOING to leave Civilization for but Civilization is not our end all invention. There is something out there. You just have to have "VISION" and a changed mind in order to see it.

So thats what I do...change minds. ^.^

:laugh: When will I learn to write my responses in a word document instead of in this box? Although, I guess it wouldn't be a TOTJO experience if I didn't accidently hit the back button. Woo! Who needs words anyways?

Wendaline the explanation to this would take FAR to long to post. If you like I can PM you why you might not believe it but you still express it. If this conversation is about right and wrong points well I can only point at the handfuls of human cultures Civilization has either killed of or assimilated into its self, not to mention the 200 species we kill a day that make your point superfluous. But you're very right. You and I dont believe that Civilization is the one right way to live. If only the world was made up of just 2 people.... :dry: I'm no ant expert but again pointing out the few exceptions does not disprove a point.

I didn't think it was a conversation about right or wrong. Just one about whether or not we're natural. Personally, I'm of that camp that believes we are a part of nature, and I don't understand how an entire species could disassociate from it. I'm not an alien. I'm an Earthling.

And part of being on this planet is dealing with the fact that species live and die by each others (and mother natures) hand. Extinction has been happening since this Earth was created and long before we came along. Is it sucky that people have wiped out certain species? Yes. Is it an unnatural act? No.

What proof do you have that cats and dogs don't remember their wild side? I've seen many strays pick up foraging in order to survive.

Just observations. Living out in boofoo land you see a lot of weird things you might not expect, and that sadly includes a few critters that have found themselves outside of society. People sometimes seem to think that they can take an animal that has spent it's whole life in our society and let them "free." Well, those animals aren't going to thrive in the wild because they haven't learned survival techniques. A tame animal can't magically turn feral. It's just not going to happen.

Like that researcher who found a lab rat in the sewers. It didn't know how to live with wild rats, and so it responded more favorably to the people it came in contact with. We like what we know.

And I'm not saying that tame animals are less natural than wild ones. We're all a part of nature, but we learn to survive in different habitats. For some that includes living around people and even benefiting from people.

New York City parks? :blink: Well you've done it I'm very much wrong. This one small section of land that allows for a few animals to live completely negates the thousands of square feet of pavement, building, and parking lots.

Haha, yeah I thought you might respond that way. I wonder how many different kinds of life live in the city instead of the park? I bet if we counted it would a really big number. That's because even though we don't see cities as being a part of nature, they are. Organisms still live and thrive in a large and varied number. Cities aren't just made of people. They're made of thousands of different species. We just don't usually bother to notice them.

As for the Prairie dogs... I've never seen a Prairie dogs deforest a huge stretch of land regardless of whats living there and build a home. If something trespasses into its home the Prairie dogs might kill it but it surely will not hunt down and exterminate the species of the trespassers in order to insure that its home is never invaded again.

No, but beavers flood large areas of land with no thought to what lives there. Carp, who are bottom feeders, have been know to greatly alter their environment by uprooting plants and causing trouble for other species. Large swarms of locusts have been known to swoop in and completely devour food sources other creatures rely on. And I know you seem to like a lot of examples, because a few just don't seem to cut it, but it's time consuming and I'm lazy. But I promise you that if you look into different species (animal, plant, insect, microorganisms) you'll see many of the traits people dislike in man. They kill, conquer, destroy, each other and each other's environments, because the name of the game is survival of the fittest and if you can change the land to adapt to your needs then you'll do it, whether or not you're hurting the other guy...because the other guys is usually competition.

I'm not saying that man can't do better to help improve the lives of our fellow Earthlings (because we can). What I am saying is that our tendency to expand and create an environment that is more favorable to us is natural. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be doing it.

Unless of course, it turns out we really are some alien invader species...but how exactly did we find out way on this planet? And if we are then do we get to blame whoever put us here for all out "unnatural" and destructive actions?

WOW! This is all good stuff. I didn't think all this discussion would result from my question. Thank you all.

I was really thinking nature isn't good or bad, easy or hard, pain or pain free. It just is. If we go with the flow of nature we'll find a smother path, not a flawless path, just smother. Forcing natural rythems to conform to us makes unessary stress and is a cause of unhappyness and suffering.

Brian wrote: I studied druidry for years and the basic premise of this new age path is that we should be one with nature. Moreover, that humanity's problems are firmly rooted in an alienation and separation from nature. Even though druidry sometimes romanticizes the past and pre-technological society, I tend to believe that we must be one with nature. But to me, that does not mean we abandon technology. Humanity's move towards industry and technology is rooted in nature. I just think it is important not to indulge in technologies or industries that have negative impacts. I believe we must be smart in the the technologies we chose to pursue.

Thank you Brian. Awen to you brother. Just because I worship nature doesn't mean I cannot embrass technology and try to make it work for the betterment of all. The Jedi Collabs is a great example.

Great posts and a great read for years to come. Thank you Daniel L for your passion and knowledge on this subject. Thank you Wendaline. There were many posts I agreed with.

Last but not least, thank you Rickie The Gray for asking the question.

As you can see from the following graph, we are clearly on a sustainable path... :whistle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atgof-9nqPk

Deforestation isn't just being done to clear land for houses, or to feed livestock...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiJr9PRb7_0

The problem with deforestation also lies in the available work, A lot of the illegal loggers are doing so to feed their families because they have nothing else.

I don't remember what the scheme I seen was called, but it basically allowed for the government to charge a corporation such as Sony a fee in order for them to be allowed to produce X amount of extra carbon per year, this boosting their ability to manufacture more product and raise profit margins (good for the business)

This money would then go to the government in (say Peru) to give jobs to "forest rangers" the responsibility of which would be to stop illegal logging, the best part about this being that the forest ranger jobs would be given to the illegal loggers at a fairer rate of pay and lets be honest a lot less backbreaking work.

So you have Sony paying these guys a better wage to do an easier job of protecting rather than destroying, it costs the local government nothing and these workers and their families are much better off, (I'm sure the Government got a kick back out of it also) and all they had to do was protect the rain forest so that when Sony produces the extra carbon it is still there to absorb it from our atmosphere.

I thought that this idea was one of the best I have seen to date, though the last thing I heard of it was it appeared to be unappreciated by the local governments that are responsible for the land the rain forests are upon, perhaps they get better kickbacks from the illegal loggers for turning a blind eye.

What gets me is that there's plenty of land available for these corporations to plant their trees, no, they insist on destroying the environment and everything that lives within it. This video changed my outlook on Nestle, that's for sure...