Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

simianthrope wrote

Same old rubbish argument, that "nature doesn't exist because some of it was touched by humans", used to turn a blind eye on the ongoing devastation of natural habitats by the current civilization. Yes, there are natural spaces mostly untouched by humans, and they are being invaded gradually through resource exploitation and suburban developments.

You may shut your eyes over it while you commute on highways, but that's what's been happening all over the place. And that IS a form of violence and oppression against non-human life forms.

−2

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

I think it's not what the article is about. It explores dangers of dichotomy of "nature vs human-made" as it enables paternalistic approaches to indigenous communities and an unjust segregation of an environment.

EDIT: Also, I think labeling any human behavior as "unnatural" could lead to dark places. And given that

I don't doubt this, but what is this "trans-exclusive bioessentialism", or is everything in human conduct needs to be labeled through the LGBTQ+ lens? Why do I think that trans social acceptance is the only struggle that matters to you?

I'm afraid, you already there. Glad to be wrong, though.

7

simianthrope wrote (edited )

My sarcasm has to do with the fact that the analysis in the quote above is in itself over-civilized. Since when are people labelled through such super-sophisticated lens? 10 years ago?

I'm not denying that cis oppression is a thing, but civilization is far wider than just the very old school '50s normie culture, duh. It is being renewed by trans people seeking to live the conservative lifestyles they were previously not accepted into. And jsyk, trans is not queer... Trans in itself is not carrying a political value of any sorts, and can totally be integrated within authoritarian cultures (think of the fucking army, for starters).

0

Bezotcovschina wrote

Noted. I'm not ready to engage in the discussion on LGBTQ+ matters here.

2

slmlanthrope wrote

Wanna know what else isn't inherently queer? Being queer. Tell us how you really feel, coward.

1

simianthrope wrote

Okay ELI5 on those matters...

How I feel about what?

What makes me a coward for than you are? Because I dare posting critical comments!? Wtf

1

enforcedcompliance wrote (edited )

No you're a coward because you're a coward.

critical comments

Okay shapiroid

0

simianthrope wrote (edited )

"nature vs human-made" is not a dichotomy, that's the point. It's an ontology.

The very simple distinction that some authors -including the one above, apparently- still don't get is that nature is not what humans haven't made, but all life forms that can sustain without planned, intended human intervention. It is, put roughly, the non-human life forms, and those not existing due to processes of domestication.

There is wild, natural life even in artificial environments like cities and suburbs. It's not the gardens, municipal parks or other maintained green infrastructure.

It lives through the cracks and down the back alleys, and inside your apartment's walls and underneath. It also is everywhere in the atmosphere and below the pavement. And guess what... it also lives inside of YOU. It's bacterial, insect, plant life forms, as well as the bioelectric fluxes that animate life forms. All of this living stuff has preceded and will likely outlive humans. It doesn't live because of, but despite humans, and also beyond humans.

The only false dichotomy is the one that opposes humans to nature or vice versa. We are from nature, yet nature is not from us. Culture is what is from us.

The fact that this author cannot see anything outside of the "human-made" realm thinly-veils their anthropocentryism.

0

Bezotcovschina wrote

I think I get what you saying, but I disagree. You see, exclusion of human things from nature may suggest that there is no way of harmonic coexistence. In my opinion, the way of thinking of humanity as a part of nature is more useful and promising.

3

simianthrope wrote

I don't think that is the reason why we're producing crap that destroys wild life. There is of course the domestication angle, one that is rather about "civilized vs savage" dichotomy. Tho the philosophical foundations in themselves may be overrated.

Why do people keep buying/consuming cars and make babies, for instance? Is this really because they see themselves as separate from the natural world?

I'm finding this narrative to be counter-productive and not that well-founded.

Our cities are filled with cars and people still make plenty of babies even if there's zero need for those, other than, in some cases, financial incentives by governments. Just these two things in themselves, continuous unneeded procreation and car-based cultures, and putting an incredible economic weight on natural ecosystems, destroying and/or exploiting those on a large scale. You should the story, by now.

People are into capital, power. Or obtaining more. At least that's how they are programmed to be into. Cars and babies are seen as tools for this, to gain more power and accumulate more capital.

1

rot wrote

human are animals, we are part of nature. the concept of a human "natural" world v.s an inhuman "unnatural" world is foreign to many peoples and acts as a part of the colonist myth that the lands they were colonizing were untouched

2

enforcedcompliance wrote

Yes, there are natural spaces mostly untouched by humans

This is so wrong is hurts.

1

simianthrope wrote

I can show you several areas on Google Earth or some alternative mapping service if you'd like... Or "untouched" is a vague notion in itself. Does it mean "unchanged by human intervention", or just that no human has ever went there?

0

enforcedcompliance wrote (edited )

Then be about it cissoid. Don't say you'll do it. Just do it.

3

simianthrope wrote (edited )

So let's start with this region in here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Arctic+Archipelago/@68.0459061,-106.2604426,8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x51d8aa9d7e281df5:0x3ea61e49a27154de!8m2!3d75!4d-90.0000001

I posted the map version, not satellite, to show you the absence of roads, even while there are a few sparse towns where people go to and fro by airplane, and less often boat. Feel free to zoom closer in satellite mode to notice the sheer absence of any bigger human presence, and much less infrastructure, save from, perhaps, a handful of hunters or very occasional scientists or military doing specific training or observation operations.

Or equally places like these:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Siberia,+Russia/@70.05736,155.5930424,7z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5c87ebbaf5e77a3b:0x2c4412982b67464c!8m2!3d61.0137097!4d99.1966559

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Antarctica/@-68.8631761,-68.7649779,6.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0xa4b9967b3390754b:0x6e52be1f740f2075!8m2!3d-75.250973!4d-0.071389 (lol)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mongolia/@48.6588331,138.2853407,8.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x3627050669aa6d4b:0xe0dd213937e6e096!8m2!3d46.862496!4d103.846656

...and on and on...

See? Took me just a bit more time/effort than downvoting. Not too hard.

1

enforcedcompliance wrote (edited )

mfw if it doesn't look like the white mans world it can't have been affected by humans

It's like when the Europeans landed in the Americas and said: look at this pure virgin wilderness. Lol.

2

simianthrope wrote

Why? Like they were touched by pollution? Climate change? Alright, so how does this not make them natural, still?

0