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

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Rewilding the Self

#31

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

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?

I'm reminded of a sign I once saw at a protest:

> We are nature defending itself

It might interest you for use as a search query, there seems to be more to it than just a sign.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#32

Post by 1shooner »

xigency wrote: post #25
Over2Chars wrote: post #2

"walking barefoot in the grass, planting native species in our backyards, or simply pausing to observe the life teeming around us" - from the fine article Ok, I'll get right on it.

I don't get the downvotes. It's hard to read any fraction of this article without wanting to take a walk away from the computer.

From the guidelines:

> Don't be snarky.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#34

Post by SteveVeilStream »

With the world's population now exceeding 8 billion, we need to be thoughtful about the best way to rewild ourselves. We can live in dense cities with concrete high-rises but animals can't. Many animals at the top of the food chain need significant ranges for themselves. So the challenge is finding a way that we can minimize our footprint while also providing more opportunities for legitimate connection with nature. Put another way, a bimodal life - with time split between a concrete high-rises and natural areas is probably more ideal for the overall system than a push for everyone to live in slightly more rural areas.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#35

Post by ANewFormation »

SteveVeilStream wrote: post #34

With the world's population now exceeding 8 billion, we need to be thoughtful about the best way to rewild ourselves. We can live in dense cities with concrete high-rises but animals can't. Many animals at the top of the food chain need significant ranges for themselves. So the challenge is finding a way that we can minimize our footprint while also providing more opportunities for legitimate connection with nature.…

The world is far bigger than most realize. Split completely equally there's enough room for more than 200,000 square feet per person. [1] Thats about 4 football fields of area for every single man, woman, and child alive today.

Factor in that some people enjoy living in urban areas, most won't leave in any case, and so on - and we're realistically talking about tens to hundreds of football fields per person. It's a big world out there.

[1] - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=land+area+of+earth+%2F...

Re: Rewilding the Self

#36

Post by andrei_says_ »

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?

Aurora Morales, in one of the essays in Medicine Stories, mentions how we need to stop referring to our biosphere as “environment”.

It is not something “out there” that surrounds us. It is the air we take in with every breath etc. we are one with it.

Poisoning or destroying it is the very act of poisoning and destroying ourselves.

She points out that perceiving the biosphere, the land, other living beings, and humans as resources - and especially resources tied to an economic system of infinite growth, causes us to destroy it all for the creation of illusory value.

We are dealing with normalized mental illness on planetary scale which causes humanity to actively destroy our biosphere.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#37

Post by spiderfarmer »

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…

Equilibrium truly doesn’t exist in nature. https://willsarvis.medium.com/the-myth-of-balance-in-nature-...

Re: Rewilding the Self

#38

Post by wat10000 »

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,…

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 fundamentally not so different, then that implies we don’t need to worry too much about what we do. Dumping toxic waste is like a deer crapping on the ground. It doesn’t worry about where the stuff goes or what will clean it up, so why should we?

The answer is that we’re not part of nature, we don’t have robust ecosystems taking care of all those details. We should care because we still need nature for many things, and beyond that we still want it. And so we must act to preserve it, because we certainly are capable of acting to destroy it.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#39

Post by bokoharambe »

wat10000 wrote: post #38
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,…

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…

Humans both are a part of nature and are distinct from it at the same time. It is wrong to dissolve humanity into its natural constituents just as it is wrong to turn humanity into something totally Other or supernatural standing above nature. Both can be true.

Reject the law of noncontradiction.

Re: Rewilding the Self

#40

Post by card_zero »

bokoharambe wrote: post #39
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…

Humans both are a part of nature and are distinct from it at the same time. It is wrong to dissolve humanity into its natural constituents just as it is wrong to turn humanity into something totally Other or supernatural standing above nature. Both can be true. Reject the law of noncontradiction.

But at the same time, accept it.
Post reply on HN