"But there are few terms more equivocal, more ambiguous, have more multiple meanings, than the term 'nature'."
[source: Alan Kor, The Birth of the Modern Mind]
God I just want this on like, a flashcard, so I can carry it around wherever I go and just wave it at relevant conversations.
rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
Like, we have the 17th century version of 'Nature as Mechanical' still embedded in our education system, and it becomes part of the secular spirituality of western thought even today
Like, we hold few things as sacrosanct and divine as preservation of the distinction between the Natural and the Human
Aligning your lifestyle with Natural Behaviours that will lead to wellbeing through a mechanistic, step-by-step process
Natural Remedies, All-Natural Ingredients
These are all Spiritual stances. (Spiritual does not equate to bad or wrong, but it is something we should accept, culturally)
By what criteria do we distinguish the natural behaviour of the Orangutan or Crow crafting a tool, and a Human crafting a tool? Which behaviour is natural?
If an animal made it, how is it unnatural?
The idea of ecosystems as clockwork mechanisms of perpetual stasis has become our primary argument against human destruction, despite all scientific proof pointing towards a far more nuanced model of constant change and adaptation.
If biomes were harmonious clockwork phenomena before humans came along, the anti-evolution movement would be entirely correct.
re: rambly, pol-abstract, western spirituality- [CW: Meta (anti-kin bs)]
This, among other things, is why
I'm F'n Laff
..At the idea that Western Spirituality had absolutely no connection to anything animalistic -> started appropriating it from other cultures -> kin happened.
Like, the people who say that? Get lernt, read a book and shut the hell up, you utter earspoons.
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@pastelbat this is inciteful in a good way
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@pastelbat i think its improtant to say that like, humans shouldnt strive to "preserve natural ecosystems" but not to "destroy healthy ecosystems"
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@pastelbat the first thing leads to endless stasis in communities that are actually very unhealthy but work in a way that humans consider "natural"
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@pastelbat the second allows communties to change over time, but still be healthy in the long run
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@daylight I read a really fascinating essay in Uni about how European Settlers in the Americas just-assumed that they'd found Untouched Pristine Bountiful Wilderness
And how many Native American tribes worked for generations building paths, encouraging fertile hunting/gathering grounds, managing stable forest fires, etc, and that just got overwritten with the Pure & Untouched Land narrative.
And then reading years later about the development of National/Federal Parks program in the early 20th Century, and how much of it was focused on Preservation of Divine Wilderness & keeping it "pure and untouched".
Idk, I don't have a conclusion, just a "Huh there's connections there, and connections to modern attitudes & assumptions"
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@pastelbat yeah defintiyly, the ragers of forest fires we get are the result of poorly maintained woodland. preventing natural burning until a critical mass develops into an unstopable blaze. we'd be so much better off if we let the native people who understand the local ecosystem manage them. (assuming that knowledge hasnt been systemically eradicated0
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
@pastelbat i read a thing about uh, conservationists in the amazon region, trying to figure out large enough preserves for animals. and how invaluable native people are to that effort because
A) they actually care about the area
B) they can identify organisms really easily when it can be super unclear even to the experts (especially trees)
humans can serve a healthy role in the ecosystem and make it actively better, but western ideology of naturalism is bad
re: rambly, pol-abstract, nature, environmentalism, western spirituality
Like, I studied this stuff for my dissertation in uni: There's a *lot* of nature & animal-roles tied into our cultural & spiritual lexicon, our sense of self, and our relation with the divine.
Nature & Humanity as dual entities or a merged whole is a running debate in Western religion, philosophy and science going back *literally millenia*.
The relation between humans & other animals is complex, nuanced and fascinating in any culture; How we percieve other animals, how we weave them into our spirituality, our religion, our folklore, our culture and even our language itself, is an entire field of study rich with potential.