/pt/ – Petrarchan

I was cleaning trash today. While trying to unstick plastic bottles and dog doo bags from the soil I kept being reminded of how cooked we are. Very glad to have been born when I did. Very few seem to want to talk about it in an earnest way.

>>3511

I was cleaning trash today. While trying to unstick plastic bottles and dog doo bags from the soil I kept being reminded of how cooked we are. Very glad to have been born when I did. Very few seem to want to talk about it in an earnest way.

If it was just one thing, like just climate change or plastic pollution or ocean eutrophication or habitat loss, perhaps humanity could handle it. But all of them at once, thanks to a web of causes that is the root of our civilization and economic structure? It's not looking good. I try not to be a doomer, it's unproductive. But I just don't see a happy ending here.

The massive loss of life, environment, ecosystems, etc, does depress me, but I have some conflict about how to address it. I unarguably agree that human created causes (whether directly or indirectly) are leading the charge in warming the climate and imbalancing the natural world. However, human interventions have generally been failures when it comes to addressing environmentalism, except in the case of complete abstinence. For example, the American model of addressing wildfires. Wildfires are a natural and inherent part of the forestry in northern America. We know this because some trees involve fire in their reproductive cycle. However, our first foray into addressing wildfire was to stop it completely. It's fire, and we do not control it, so it's bad. Over time, we then realized we were actually stopping a crucial part of the forestry's natural way of being (for lack of better term). Without normal fires, the fuel load builds up in the forest and then, when fires do occur, supposedly they are bigger and hotter and larger. This brings us to the current model, where we have been trying to rehash the "prescriptive burn" for decades. That is, if we create small fires, we can mitigate the chances of big fires. Great. Except that it is still not working. Some notable wildfires in New Mexico and California have shown that people are not great at controlling fires. Prescriptive burns escape, and forests want to burn. And people living in these habitats do not want fires near them. Fingers are pointed at the agencies running the burn programs, but I wager that fire, on an ecological scale, is probably inherently unmanageable. We aren't talking campfires here. We, nortern Americans, live in places that should burn. But we don't want our houses and things to burn down, obviously that's bad. So, the contradiction between what humans want (a predictable and safe environment) and what nature wants (change, cyclical action, emergence) appears. Anyway, I wrote all this because sometimes I think that nature itself is quite volatile and we are the ones who demand it be predictable. I also lament the loss of biodiversity, and that is probably one of the current largest losses in the environment. We probably won't appreciate that until too late, as humans are determined to monoculture the world. Again, perhaps, a tendency of predictability.

No other life forms know they are alive, and neither do they know they will die. This is our curse alone. Without this hex upon our heads, we would never have withdrawn as far as we have from the natural—so far and for such a time that it is a relief to say what we have been trying with our all not to say: We have long since been denizens of the natural world. Everywhere around us are natural habitats, but within us is the shiver of startling and dreadful things. Simply put: We are not from here. If we vanished tomorrow, no organism on this planet would miss us. Nothing in nature needs us.

>>3538

No other life forms know they are alive, and neither do they know they will die. This is our curse alone. Without this hex upon our heads, we would never have withdrawn as far as we have from the natural—so far and for such a time that it is a relief to say what we have been trying with our all not to say: We have long since been denizens of the natural world. Everywhere around us are natural habitats, but within us is the shiver of startling and dreadful things. Simply put: We are not from here. If we vanished tomorrow, no organism on this planet would miss us. Nothing in nature needs us.

Have you read On the Uses and Abuses of History for Life by Nietzsche?

>>3538

No other life forms know they are alive, and neither do they know they will die. This is our curse alone. Without this hex upon our heads, we would never have withdrawn as far as we have from the natural—so far and for such a time that it is a relief to say what we have been trying with our all not to say: We have long since been denizens of the natural world. Everywhere around us are natural habitats, but within us is the shiver of startling and dreadful things. Simply put: We are not from here. If we vanished tomorrow, no organism on this planet would miss us. Nothing in nature needs us.

This is why I am religious, specifically Christian. The perception of our unique state of existence points towards us being some sort of godly creatures. Whether that means we *are* gods, or we have some part of god inside us, or we are simply god's special creatures, I'm not 100% sure. But our ability to sense more about the universe than other organisms -- our ability to understand that we're more than just a bag of flesh meant to consume food and breed -- means that we are supernatural in some way. I believe this supernaturalness is our godliness as God's children.

>>3594

>>3538 This is why I am religious, specifically Christian. The perception of our unique state of existence points towards us being some sort of godly creatures. Whether that means we *are* gods, or we have some part of god inside us, or we are simply god's special creatures, I'm not 100% sure. But our ability to sense more about the universe than other organisms -- our ability to understand that we're more than just a bag of flesh meant to consume food and breed -- means that we are supernatural in some way. I believe this supernaturalness is our godliness as God's children.

No hate but I genuinely don't understand how you get from 'there is something remarkable and even supernatural about the condition of humanity' to 'this one specific jewish carpenter about two thousand years ago was definitely literally God'

>>3594

>>3538 This is why I am religious, specifically Christian. The perception of our unique state of existence points towards us being some sort of godly creatures. Whether that means we *are* gods, or we have some part of god inside us, or we are simply god's special creatures, I'm not 100% sure. But our ability to sense more about the universe than other organisms -- our ability to understand that we're more than just a bag of flesh meant to consume food and breed -- means that we are supernatural in some way. I believe this supernaturalness is our godliness as God's children.

For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.

>>3596

>>3594 No hate but I genuinely don't understand how you get from 'there is something remarkable and even supernatural about the condition of humanity' to 'this one specific jewish carpenter about two thousand years ago was definitely literally God'

For some, and especially to many today, the historicity of Christianity is unimportant. To me, at that point, you may as well just be a neo Platonist.

>>3600

>>3596 For some, and especially to many today, the historicity of Christianity is unimportant. To me, at that point, you may as well just be a neo Platonist.

I am sympathetic to people who are of the inclination: 'I believe that there must be a God; and the Christian God has resemblance to my conception of what God is; and the Christian church is a suitable outlet for my spirituality and desire for a religious community.' But literally, actually believing in the divinity of Jesus, and in the immaculate conception, and in the resurrection... well I suppose there's a reason they call it 'faith'.

Anons, which ecological writers do you think are worth reading? Both for reading about the environment and the ways to protect it in the contemporary era. I've read the Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, and liked it, although his political position of land must be protected through federal means seems dated now.

I read Uncle Vanya last night and was struck by Astrov's monologue in the middle of Act 3 that touched on this existential resignation: Look there! That is a map of our country as it was fifty years ago. The green tints, both dark and light, represent forests. Half the map, as you see, is covered with it. Where the green is striped with red the forests were inhabited by elk and wild goats. Here on this lake, lived great flocks of swans and geese and ducks; as the old men say, there was a power of birds of every kind. Now they have vanished like a cloud. Beside the hamlets and villages, you see, I have dotted down here and there the various settlements, farms, hermit's caves, and water-mills. This country carried a great many cattle and horses, as you can see by the quantity of blue paint. For instance, see how thickly it lies in this part; there were great herds of them here, an average of three horses to every house. [A pause] Now, look lower down. This is the country as it was twenty-five years ago. Only a third of the map is green now with forests. There are no goats left and no elk. The blue paint is lighter, and so on, and so on. Now we come to the third part; our country as it appears to-day. We still see spots of green, but not much. The elk, the swans, the black-cock have disappeared. It is, on the whole, the picture of a regular and slow decline which it will evidently only take about ten or fifteen more years to complete. You may perhaps object that it is the march of progress, that the old order must give place to the new, and you might be right if roads had been run through these ruined woods, or if factories and schools had taken their place. The people then would have become better educated and healthier and richer, but as it is, we have nothing of the sort. We have the same swamps and mosquitoes; the same disease and want; the typhoid, the diphtheria, the burning villages. We are confronted by the degradation of our country, brought on by the fierce struggle for existence of the human race. It is the consequence of the ignorance and unconsciousness of starving, shivering, sick humanity that, to save its children, instinctively snatches at everything that can warm it and still its hunger. So it destroys everything it can lay its hands on, without a thought for the morrow. And almost everything has gone, and nothing has been created to take its place. [Coldly] But I see by your face that I am not interesting you.

>>3606

Anons, which ecological writers do you think are worth reading? Both for reading about the environment and the ways to protect it in the contemporary era. I've read the Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, and liked it, although his political position of land must be protected through federal means seems dated now.

Charles C Mann wrote 1491 and 1493. Neither book is explicitly about ecology (the first is about Native Americans and the second is about the Columbian Exchange) but both extensively get into ecology and the impact humans had on the natural world and alternative, more sustainable ways of living.

>>3606

Anons, which ecological writers do you think are worth reading? Both for reading about the environment and the ways to protect it in the contemporary era. I've read the Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, and liked it, although his political position of land must be protected through federal means seems dated now.

Read Desert.

>>3654

>>3606 Charles C Mann wrote 1491 and 1493. Neither book is explicitly about ecology (the first is about Native Americans and the second is about the Columbian Exchange) but both extensively get into ecology and the impact humans had on the natural world and alternative, more sustainable ways of living.

Alright, thanks. I do think that sometimes contemporary environmentalists get obsessed with indigenous people, especially northern American tribes, to a great degree, but the fact is that the Columbian exchange was a turning point for the world. >>3662

>>3606 Read Desert.

The anarchist text? This reminds me that I did read Against His-Story by Perlman, in high school lol. I'll confess to being anarchist sympathetic then, and anarchist skeptical now, but I think it might be an interesting read.

>>3606

Anons, which ecological writers do you think are worth reading? Both for reading about the environment and the ways to protect it in the contemporary era. I've read the Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, and liked it, although his political position of land must be protected through federal means seems dated now.

Linkola is great. His essay collection, "Can Life Prevail?" is available as a .pdf on archive.org His prescriptions are quite harsh, but he is still worth reading. This little documentary segment captures his "why" quite well: https://youtu.be/OkmeYe3Uh5s?t=1124

>>3774

>>3606 Linkola is great. His essay collection, "Can Life Prevail?" is available as a .pdf on archive.org His prescriptions are quite harsh, but he is still worth reading. This little documentary segment captures his "why" quite well: https://youtu.be/OkmeYe3Uh5s?t=1124

I've been meaning to get to that guy. Was actually thinking of recommending him for a personal reading group of mine lol. I like his brash. I'll check out that documentary, too.

>>3775

>>3774 I've been meaning to get to that guy. Was actually thinking of recommending him for a personal reading group of mine lol. I like his brash. I'll check out that documentary, too.

It'll be interesting to see the response you get from the reading group. Didn't go down too well at my uni seminar, lol

>>3806

>>3775 It'll be interesting to see the response you get from the reading group. Didn't go down too well at my uni seminar, lol

Probably not a great one, but I think it's good to spice things up.

>>3774

>>3606 Linkola is great. His essay collection, "Can Life Prevail?" is available as a .pdf on archive.org His prescriptions are quite harsh, but he is still worth reading. This little documentary segment captures his "why" quite well: https://youtu.be/OkmeYe3Uh5s?t=1124

Ok, I watched that micro doc. I liked how it mostly focused on his day to day life, gave a good insight into his genuine love for nature. I'm not sure what to think about Linkola's reasoning given here. Maybe I'm too Hobbes-like, but the assertion that animals mostly engage in play and pleasure while humans are the only creatures to suffer is perplexing. The other day, I found a little fledgling that had fallen from a nest and onto a car, dead. The first thing to my mind was violent, brutish, and short. That life is a struggle and fight against all elements. Humans seem to me the only ones to create the ability to even forget that fact. He reminds me of Nietzche's man at the beginning of Uses and Abuses of History, who looks a cow and yearns to be a beast, because animals simply exist without a perception of time. And time creates human suffering by the ability to regret and fear. At the same time, I'm sympathetic, because I think that animals do engage in something that we can never and I also am jealous of birds for being able to fly. His thought is maybe just more utilitarian than I expected.

Well Linkola was had some very insane ideas I agree with you completely the biggest flaw of all the “animals all do good humans all do bad” philosophy is that it doesn’t take into account that humans are just as much a part of nature and earth’s ecosystem as all other animals and that our traits are just as much as ours as of every other species. Does that excuse a lot of our behaviour? Not really, but you gotta contextualice it.

>>4424

Well Linkola was had some very insane ideas I agree with you completely the biggest flaw of all the “animals all do good humans all do bad” philosophy is that it doesn’t take into account that humans are just as much a part of nature and earth’s ecosystem as all other animals and that our traits are just as much as ours as of every other species. Does that excuse a lot of our behaviour? Not really, but you gotta contextualice it.

I'm not sure what Linkola's stance is on humans in an ecosystem, but I agree somewhat. Although, in most cases, humans are an invasive species and behave accordingly (destabilizing the normal predator prey cycles, culling species for their own benefit, removing big game). It's easy to see why many people, especially as the Christians above, regarded humans are quite different than the natural world, both due to constructive and destructive forces. Suffering is common in an ecosystem, but rarely does it prolong or be more than intended as in the human world.

>>4419

>>3774 Ok, I watched that micro doc. I liked how it mostly focused on his day to day life, gave a good insight into his genuine love for nature. I'm not sure what to think about Linkola's reasoning given here. Maybe I'm too Hobbes-like, but the assertion that animals mostly engage in play and pleasure while humans are the only creatures to suffer is perplexing. The other day, I found a little fledgling that had fallen from a nest and onto a car, dead. The first thing to my mind was violent, brutish, and short. That life is a struggle and fight against all elements. Humans seem to me the only ones to create the ability to even forget that fact. He reminds me of Nietzche's man at the beginning of Uses and Abuses of History, who looks a cow and yearns to be a beast, because animals simply exist without a perception of time. And time creates human suffering by the ability to regret and fear. At the same time, I'm sympathetic, because I think that animals do engage in something that we can never and I also am jealous of birds for being able to fly. His thought is maybe just more utilitarian than I expected.

I get what you're saying, but I think Linkola's point is that once the runts have inevitably died and the healthy animals have reached maturity they don't waste this triumph on some sort of meaningless rat race. The death of that fledgling you found was relatively brief, whereas many humans suffer for most of their waking lives. Modern humans reach maturity at an extraordinarily high rate, so we avoid the form of brutality you're referencing, but our adulthood is strained compared to the leisurely life of an adult duck (or "wild" human, for that matter). You don't see much quiet desperation or suicide among wild beasts. Add to that the ecological cost of our misery and you begin to see where he is coming from.

>>4616

>>4419 I get what you're saying, but I think Linkola's point is that once the runts have inevitably died and the healthy animals have reached maturity they don't waste this triumph on some sort of meaningless rat race. The death of that fledgling you found was relatively brief, whereas many humans suffer for most of their waking lives. Modern humans reach maturity at an extraordinarily high rate, so we avoid the form of brutality you're referencing, but our adulthood is strained compared to the leisurely life of an adult duck (or "wild" human, for that matter). You don't see much quiet desperation or suicide among wild beasts. Add to that the ecological cost of our misery and you begin to see where he is coming from.

Ridiculous to think that the life of any animal, mature or infant, is anything other than chronic want interspersed with terror.

>>4620

>>4616 Ridiculous to think that the life of any animal, mature or infant, is anything other than chronic want interspersed with terror.

I bet there is more terror and want behind the camera than in front of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7GmYJnUtsY You only think animals are terrified all the time because that is how they act in the presence of humans. A tiger asked to report on human happiness would provide a similar report. Thankfully we have cameras to disprove your pov. As for human vs animal suffering, read Schopenhauer's essay "On the Suffering of the World" for a way better formulation than I can provide. Specifically the part beginning with: >I have reminded the reader that every state of welfare, every feeling of satisfaction, is negative in its character; that is to say, it consists in freedom from pain, which is the positive element of existence. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Studies_in_Pessimism/On_the_Sufferings_of_the_World

I think it's a good thing that *some* things are coming to a close; the dinosaurs "died out" and now we have chickens. I think and hope it will be this way for those who deserve it.

>>4628

I think it's a good thing that *some* things are coming to a close; the dinosaurs "died out" and now we have chickens. I think and hope it will be this way for those who deserve it.

This is a good point - we should be careful not to stabilize any population indefinitely - but I still think we should be mindful of how much damage we could do. If a complex ecosystem is displaced because a bunch of mindless investors and consumers want yet another big box store, is that really deserved? I mean I guess so, sucks to suck, but it just doesn't feel right.