I think the whole debate is a waste of time. What difference does it make if we define ourselves as part of nature, or above/outside of it? Do we suddenly change into a different being if we decide on one or the other? No, obviously. Some may use the "humans are nature" argument to justify environmental destruction and exploitation, but honestly it doesn't matter. We'd do that with or without justification. All that's worth debating is what actions we should take in regard to our ecosystems and our planet's health.
As a side tangent, I don't have issue with groups arguing to change textbook definitions of words either. Language evolves and changes. Every time language has changed, I guarantee you it was done because it benefited someone. And it will continue to operate that way. Why would language _ever_ evolve or change unless someone wanted it to? And if the general consensus hates a proposed change enough, it can reject the change. The We Are Nature group was in no way the comically evil "political group trying to control our language" as you framed it. I'm sure you have your own definition of nature yourself, which no doubt has some speck of political motivation behind it. Show me a definition of nature that wasn't produced with some political influence in mind, and I'll show you a flying magical unicorn with laser eyes.
Interesting question comes to mind. What defining factor/factors separate something from nature? Philosophically, I can think of little, but in terms of ecology, I don't find your argument for us being uniquely able to reflect on nature as a justification to excuse ourselves of it...I think. Why can it not be the case that nature permits that which is a part of it to reflect on itself, as well as manipulate it? But now, I wonder about being "earthly." If we ever have space colonies, are we earthly? I would think not. So what would it mean to leave nature? Is it a place? If it is, would it not be the "default" state of an environment? In which case, to leave is to define our own environment rather that flourish within "the" existing one, right? But that's basically what you're saying, which I guess puts me in your camp. If ecological nature is not a place, I struggle to understand what else it could be. Perhaps you agree. I shouldn't be surprised, from the start this video was explicitly stated to be about definitions, and I'm sure we both know how fruitless arguing definitions can be.
Thats more or less what ocurred to me while watching this video essay. The question about factors that could be seen or argued for as meaningful basis for separation etc. My intuition is in disagreement with some parts but I like the provocative tone and questioning of the use and instrumentalization of concepts. It´s dificult to escape the moralistic bias, and anthropocentrism...and the egotistic unconscious urge to signal virtue and accommodate guilty feelings that arise in our unavoidably judgemental society.
Is this a result of the two half of our experience? There is the world around us, and then there is our perception of the world (the mindscape). The world is tangible but meaningless, and the mind is intangible but full of meaning (as far as I know). Both are essential. There could then exist a distinction between the part of the world that exists spontaneously (nature), and the part of the world that is a manifestation of our thoughts (cultural things).
You should go on the "Horseshoe Theory" podcast ran by Jreg and Art Chad, I think you three could have a great discussion. Also would love to hear your thoughts on "Scavenger's Reign"
Did not like this video. You're right to criticize that whole "We Are Nature" business, but your pearl-clutching about "eco-anxiety" is obnoxious at best and just plain stupid at worst. So much of what you say boils down to "well we don't know very much," yet you assert the need for confidence and assertiveness. Confidence in ignorance is, definitionally, stupidity. It is a good thing for us to be anxious about the apparent breakdown of complex systems we scarcely understand, and your call for "nuance" is pointless in the face of the clear need for action. And, surprise! Collective action is negotiated and accomplished through processes we generally refer to as "politics." Not that I'm particularly a fan of the state of politics at the moment, but it is frankly stupid to suggest that what we actually need is a few more decades of debate.
Right? He seems like the type of person to be _deeply_ conservative and involved in politics, but then complains about things being "overly political" when changes are made he disagrees with. _Rules for thee but not for me_ type of behavior.
The original meaning of "nature" was the opposite of "art". Art was anything created by humans, and nature was everything else. According to this dichotomy, humans themselves (as biological organisms) would be considered a part of nature, but human technology, culture, etc. would not. This dichotomy is a lot older than the Enlightenment, but it's not particularly accurate or rational. It's not hard to see the contradictions and inconsistencies that arise from taking this supposed distinction too seriously. Humans are unique among earth's species life, but the difference between us and other animals is merely one of degree, rather than kind. We're exceptionally intelligent mammals, but we ARE still mammals.
Thank you, this is very informative and inspiring 🌳🪲
i have been saving this in my tabs for days and finally sitting down at the end of the week and watching it during my weekly trip was so worth it
All civilisations are built out of the resources around it. When the resources collapse so do the civilisations.
Thank you. This is so needed.
This work you do deserves far more eyes and ears drawn to it.
I think the whole debate is a waste of time. What difference does it make if we define ourselves as part of nature, or above/outside of it? Do we suddenly change into a different being if we decide on one or the other? No, obviously.
Some may use the "humans are nature" argument to justify environmental destruction and exploitation, but honestly it doesn't matter. We'd do that with or without justification. All that's worth debating is what actions we should take in regard to our ecosystems and our planet's health.
As a side tangent, I don't have issue with groups arguing to change textbook definitions of words either. Language evolves and changes. Every time language has changed, I guarantee you it was done because it benefited someone. And it will continue to operate that way. Why would language _ever_ evolve or change unless someone wanted it to?
And if the general consensus hates a proposed change enough, it can reject the change. The We Are Nature group was in no way the comically evil "political group trying to control our language" as you framed it. I'm sure you have your own definition of nature yourself, which no doubt has some speck of political motivation behind it. Show me a definition of nature that wasn't produced with some political influence in mind, and I'll show you a flying magical unicorn with laser eyes.
i'm just about to go to bed so i will watch tomorrow but so happy you uploaded! please keep doing what you're doing!
I love your videos so much!
Interesting question comes to mind. What defining factor/factors separate something from nature?
Philosophically, I can think of little, but in terms of ecology, I don't find your argument for us being uniquely able to reflect on nature as a justification to excuse ourselves of it...I think. Why can it not be the case that nature permits that which is a part of it to reflect on itself, as well as manipulate it?
But now, I wonder about being "earthly." If we ever have space colonies, are we earthly? I would think not.
So what would it mean to leave nature? Is it a place? If it is, would it not be the "default" state of an environment? In which case, to leave is to define our own environment rather that flourish within "the" existing one, right? But that's basically what you're saying, which I guess puts me in your camp.
If ecological nature is not a place, I struggle to understand what else it could be. Perhaps you agree.
I shouldn't be surprised, from the start this video was explicitly stated to be about definitions, and I'm sure we both know how fruitless arguing definitions can be.
Thats more or less what ocurred to me while watching this video essay. The question about factors that could be seen or argued for as meaningful basis for separation etc. My intuition is in disagreement with some parts but I like the provocative tone and questioning of the use and instrumentalization of concepts.
It´s dificult to escape the moralistic bias, and anthropocentrism...and the egotistic unconscious urge to signal virtue and accommodate guilty feelings that arise in our unavoidably judgemental society.
People digging up their front gardens to turn them into car parks. Digging up their back gardens to put recreation rooms in them. What is nature?
Is this a result of the two half of our experience? There is the world around us, and then there is our perception of the world (the mindscape). The world is tangible but meaningless, and the mind is intangible but full of meaning (as far as I know). Both are essential. There could then exist a distinction between the part of the world that exists spontaneously (nature), and the part of the world that is a manifestation of our thoughts (cultural things).
We are not separate from nature. Were are not same as nature. We are nature and we are beyond nature. So, in one word, we are... amogus
You should go on the "Horseshoe Theory" podcast ran by Jreg and Art Chad, I think you three could have a great discussion.
Also would love to hear your thoughts on "Scavenger's Reign"
Did not like this video. You're right to criticize that whole "We Are Nature" business, but your pearl-clutching about "eco-anxiety" is obnoxious at best and just plain stupid at worst. So much of what you say boils down to "well we don't know very much," yet you assert the need for confidence and assertiveness. Confidence in ignorance is, definitionally, stupidity. It is a good thing for us to be anxious about the apparent breakdown of complex systems we scarcely understand, and your call for "nuance" is pointless in the face of the clear need for action. And, surprise! Collective action is negotiated and accomplished through processes we generally refer to as "politics." Not that I'm particularly a fan of the state of politics at the moment, but it is frankly stupid to suggest that what we actually need is a few more decades of debate.
Right? He seems like the type of person to be _deeply_ conservative and involved in politics, but then complains about things being "overly political" when changes are made he disagrees with.
_Rules for thee but not for me_ type of behavior.
The original meaning of "nature" was the opposite of "art". Art was anything created by humans, and nature was everything else.
According to this dichotomy, humans themselves (as biological organisms) would be considered a part of nature, but human technology, culture, etc. would not.
This dichotomy is a lot older than the Enlightenment, but it's not particularly accurate or rational. It's not hard to see the contradictions and inconsistencies that arise from taking this supposed distinction too seriously.
Humans are unique among earth's species life, but the difference between us and other animals is merely one of degree, rather than kind. We're exceptionally intelligent mammals, but we ARE still mammals.