Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rewilding the Self

worldsensorium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Rewilding the Self

#61

Post by spiderfarmer »

sriacha wrote: post #48
spiderfarmer wrote: post #21

My problem with the term “ecological balance” is that it doesn’t exist. It’s a mythical term that seems invented by Disney. Nature is brutal. Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear. That’s exactly why having a lot of species is important. But it’s hardly balanced.

I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful. Of course over geologic scales extinctions are quite normal, and nothing is static. That doesn't mean ecosystems aren't normally resilient to perturbations on a smaller timescales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability >Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear. There is plenty of evidence that extinction rates are extremely high right now, and…

Why? It doesn't retract from the fact that biodiversity is important.

Biodiversity is important because nature is brutal.

And it's clear to anyone who is willing to listen that humans are culpable. But that doesn't mean nature will return to an equilibrium when humans disappear.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#62

Post by ggpsv »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #61
sriacha wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful. Of course over geologic scales extinctions are quite normal, and nothing is static. That doesn't mean ecosystems aren't normally resilient to perturbations on a smaller timescales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability >Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear. There is plenty of evidence that extinction rates are extremely high right now, and…

Why? It doesn't retract from the fact that biodiversity is important. Biodiversity is important because nature is brutal. And it's clear to anyone who is willing to listen that humans are culpable. But that doesn't mean nature will return to an equilibrium when humans disappear.

Is it really brutal? Can you single out "nature" and its characteristics?

Brutal sounds like a value judgement, one that I suspect explains nothing about the fact.

Can we accept that it just is, and we're part of that, for all our vices and virtues?

Re: Rewilding the Self

#63

Post by netsharc »

research_pie wrote: post #47
PaulRobinson wrote: post #6

We are nature. The separation between humanity and nature is a false one, that works against conservation efforts. I like the idea of rewilding because it forces us to see ourselves as part of a large natural system - which is what we are - and helps grow appreciation for that system. But until there is a way for recognition of that system to become more profitable than "othering" nature - polluting the environment,…

If we are nature and there is no separation then whatever we do is nature. Including polluting and destroying part of the system.

This[1] says humans make up 34% of mammal biomass, 64% is livestock, and 4% wild animals. Another stat[2] says we kill more than 63 billion chickens each year. I like my steak and fried chicken, but damn if it's not horrific. (Imagine if an alien race farmed and killed 60 billion humans, each year...)

1) https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass 2) https://birdvenue.com/homegrown-flock/chickens/how-many-chic...

Re: Rewilding the Self

#64

Post by johan_felisaz »

arn3n wrote: post #11
PaulRobinson wrote: post #6

We are nature. The separation between humanity and nature is a false one, that works against conservation efforts. I like the idea of rewilding because it forces us to see ourselves as part of a large natural system - which is what we are - and helps grow appreciation for that system. But until there is a way for recognition of that system to become more profitable than "othering" nature - polluting the environment,…

This is a take on environmental communication I’ve heard more and more of recently. Out of curiosity, do you know of other literature or people trying to reframe the human/nature relationship?

The anthropologist Philippe Descola with his main work Beyond Nature and Culture has been trying to classify the nature/culture relations by studying comparatively several societies.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#65

Post by caseyy »

kmmlng wrote: post #26
spiderfarmer wrote: post #21

My problem with the term “ecological balance” is that it doesn’t exist. It’s a mythical term that seems invented by Disney. Nature is brutal. Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear. That’s exactly why having a lot of species is important. But it’s hardly balanced.

It does seem that there are periods and places where things are in equilibrium, or stable. At some point, something typically comes along and disturbs that balance. This can be seen in the fossil record, where you have lots of species going extinct during fairly short periods of time, while there are other times when not much happens. What people are concerned about is that we, as humans, are the thing that is distur…

The TV series “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” talks about how scientists tried to simulate balance in nature with control theory and found that there isn’t much balance at all. The premise that there is balance, despite being very popular, was shown to be false.

I recommend a watch, it is very well-directed too. But here is Wikipedia saying the theory has been discredited if you don’t want to spend the time on the documentary series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

Re: Rewilding the Self

#66

Post by [deleted] »

sriacha wrote: post #48
spiderfarmer wrote: post #21

My problem with the term “ecological balance” is that it doesn’t exist. It’s a mythical term that seems invented by Disney. Nature is brutal. Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear. That’s exactly why having a lot of species is important. But it’s hardly balanced.

I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful. Of course over geologic scales extinctions are quite normal, and nothing is static. That doesn't mean ecosystems aren't normally resilient to perturbations on a smaller timescales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability >Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear. There is plenty of evidence that extinction rates are extremely high right now, and…

[deleted]

Re: Rewilding the Self

#67

Post by CalRobert »

picafrost wrote: post #44
wat10000 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the appeal of this framing, but it seems wrong. We came from nature but we’re qualitatively different. No other species could spread across the world in the virtual blink of an eye. No other species could dig up and burn gigatons of coal or eradicate thousands of species just for convenience, food, or sheer indifference. I don’t see it helping conservation efforts either. If we’re part of nature, if we’re funda…

Other lifeforms have dramatically altered the planet in the (geologic) past. The Great Oxidation Event, when plants colonized land, etc. These events were far more catastrophic to the status quo of their time. Timelines, means, and modes differ, sure. If anything makes us qualitatively different it's that we have a choice. Or do we? Does a plant have a choice jumping from sea to land? Do we have a choice in greedily…

For all we know there have been great civilizations in eons past. How would we know? 100 million years from now there might not be a trace of our own civilization left.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#68

Post by salomonk_mur »

netsharc wrote: post #63
research_pie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are nature and there is no separation then whatever we do is nature. Including polluting and destroying part of the system.

This[1] says humans make up 34% of mammal biomass, 64% is livestock, and 4% wild animals. Another stat[2] says we kill more than 63 billion chickens each year. I like my steak and fried chicken, but damn if it's not horrific. (Imagine if an alien race farmed and killed 60 billion humans, each year...) 1) https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass 2) https://birdvenue.com/homegrown-flock/chickens/how-many-c…

I wonder how many wild animals would be killed and eaten yearly in a world without humans. Are those deaths horrific too?

Would the earth itself be a horrific hellhole given it would be sustaining billions of deaths, each year?

I have never understood this argument against animal farming. I'm all for humane treatment of livestock, but we can't fool ourselves into believing that the corresponding biomass in a completely "wild" earth would be having a better time, or a better death, than our cows and chickens.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#69

Post by spiderfarmer »

ggpsv wrote: post #62
spiderfarmer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It doesn't retract from the fact that biodiversity is important. Biodiversity is important because nature is brutal. And it's clear to anyone who is willing to listen that humans are culpable. But that doesn't mean nature will return to an equilibrium when humans disappear.

Is it really brutal? Can you single out "nature" and its characteristics? Brutal sounds like a value judgement, one that I suspect explains nothing about the fact. Can we accept that it just is, and we're part of that, for all our vices and virtues?

Embrace nature and go live in the jungle without clothes, tools, fire, water, food, medicine. Calling it brutal after such an experience wouldn’t be dismissed as a value judgement.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#70

Post by conartist6 »

I did a double take at "walk barefoot on the grass" as the top suggestion, as the kind of grass you can walk barefoot on is the least wild thing around (at least where I live)
Post reply on HN