the word nature has been watered down so much... human civilization is part of nature yes? so what Treadwell sought was a life in the wild, and honestly I think it's pretty clear that he spent so much time there because he enjoyed it, and maybe "protecting the bears" was the only excuse to allow him to do something so crazy. he wasn't up there studying environmentalist dogma, he was doing whatever he wanted to do.. barely a civil disobedience. MrCropper why do you hate freedom?
to criticize a man for living secluded in the wild and "worshiping nature" i find to be a gross misinterpretation of what he was really doing: being an escapist, and rediscovering in the most primordial manner what it is to be human. To deny someone that right, on the grounds that they are a fanatic, would be denying them a basic freedom.
is this really a matter of grave concern? devoted environmentalists (slash idealists) putting their own lives in danger?
i think it would be a lot more useful for people to understand that skyscrapers and the monetary system, etc. are part of nature too, they are things that are inseparable from the "natural." Just as a termite nest is a natural phenomenon and a beehive, and wolf pack, and a forest and so on, so are the things that man achieves, because it is in his nature to strive for such accomplishments. It really needs a platonic distortion to separate a man and his actions from nature itself. (see F. Bacon)
I enjoy human society, and I also fear bear confrontations. But I do not call his beliefs silly. Remember how he recorded the bear that presumably killed him? He knew the risk he was taking. Martyrs don't recant in their last moment of agony. Otherwise he might as well bring a gun.
If he took a gun, that would imply that he felt that his life was of more important than any bear's. You fear bears and you do not have an understanding of them on the level that he did. As strange and socially awkward as he was, can you blame him for feeling personally out of place in human society? You prove his point that he did not fit in with people. His human nature was not as natural as you say it should be. Bears on a ship? Well if they feel like sailing.....
Teddy Roosevelt was an outspoken critic of the anthropomorphism of animals. He was an avid hunter and thought it was a crime to misinform children of the nature of wild creatures.
I'd like to hear the thinking behind your decision to show that documentary to those kids. I'm hesitant to agree that it is something they should watch at that age, but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of pedagogy.
(Besides, even if he hadn't been killed, just being exposed to Timothy Treadwell's personality for 90 minutes would seem to be traumatic).
"I'd like to hear the thinking behind your decision to show that documentary to those kids. "
There aren't many documentaries that show in such an obvious way how dangerous and silly nature worship is. And the kids have a LOT of nature worship inculcated from the public schools - species going extinct, landfills running out of room... I wouldn't have introduced them to these subjects, but since they've been started on it, I do what I can to show them how silly it all is.
Wow. When I watch the kids at the end it is so politically IN-correct that it makes me wince. This wincing reflex was beat into me by a liberal arts education. It should be obvious now that bears, captive show tigers, and stingrays are killing machines. They get by in nature because they kill what they eat. Their violent tendencies are not the product of men with "bad consumerist philosophies".
"Nature is a set of laws for us to investigate." I'd like to provide an addendum here: Nature is a set of laws for us to investigate and exploit. One of the most wonderful things about humanity qua humanity is our ability to exploit the universe around us in a selfish manner.
Also, Mr. Cropper, I really enjoy your matter-of-fact style of teaching. It's a very good thing that you speak to your students so frankly about death, which is, sadly, usually dodged by most teachers.
Amen! - I had an argument with a friend along these lines about what is nature. My stance is the same as yours: humans are a part of nature and as we create from it and nothing more. I stated that a computer is as much a part of nature as anything else and the other person lost it. They could not answer how it was created if it was not made by man and from one or more elements. The only thing that they could retort was "I feel that... - "Kant was the first hippy!" Hilarious!
A1. This reminds me of a similar man who was glorified on 20/20. He lives among wolves, & even convinced his girlfriend to live in the woods w/ him & the wolves. I fear that they might 1 day share that fate.
I find it sad that this happened. I think there's a certain hubris involved. The man came into much greater proximity to bears than most people, & so he understood them in a way that most people don't. But it doesn't follow from that that this man could always predict how they'd behave.
A2. MrCropper, what do U think of cases where an animal is used for entertainment purposes, & then the animal turns on its trainer & attacks him? The white tiger attacked half the magician team of Siegfried & Roy, & an elephant at a circus on Oahu killed its trainer. PETA cites such cases as proof that we humans are full of hubris to believe that we can control animals; they see this as the wilderness getting its revenge.
A3. & yet, MrCropper, here is a case where a man who reveres the wilderness above human nature (human nature being the ability to employ a rational faculty to reshape the environment to suit human purposes) is attacked by an animal, & U cite this case to argue a point that is exactly the opposite of the point PETA makes when domesticated animals turn on their owners. What do U say to PETA members who say that animal attacks on humans bespeak man's moral inferiority & metaphysical puniness?
A4. I do hold Nature as supreme, but I don't define Nature the way that most people do. I think of Nature, not as a wilderness that is alien to man's artificial doings, but of the Laws of Nature -- everything metaphysically given. Today's "Nature Worshippers" believe nature must not be used for selfish human purposes; just obeyed. But, to rework something Bacon said, I believe that we should "obey" Nature insofar as doing so allows us to "command" Nature for our own self-interested purposes.
A5. MrCropper, it was great when, as you spoke to the kids, you flailed your arms around in such an animated fashion. As YouTube is a visual medium, your YouTube vlogs would be even more attention-grabbing if such lively gestures were incorporated into your vlogs. :-)
Bears, tigers and wolves, etc cannot be domesticated. They can be trained but they are always wild. Trainers must know this and act accordingly. It is tragic for them but they have chosen that life. A trainer should always be on guard of wild animals acting wild. Pets are animals which can be domesticated. They lose practically all of their wild nature and depend on man for survival. I think it might be genetic. They can still be violent when mistreated but pose a much lower risk to man.
What I meant is that PETA cites those as examples of real-life Frankenstein stories. Like Dr. Frankenstein, the animal trainer believes that he can master nature, & the animal turning against him is like "Nature"/the Frankenstein Monster rebelling against man for the hubris of trying to control the non-human. U cited Treadwell's case of what happens when men assume that the wilderness is gentle. What do U think of that contrast? I agree w/ U, but Y R U more right than the Frankenstein parable?
Actually bears are much more dangerous then wolves. Bears arnt very social even among thier own kind, on the other hand wolves are very social, even been know to take in human child and they become some wolf kid. 0.o Humans were able to get wovles as companions... still it would suck for this dude to break the streak off no one in north America being killed by a wolf...
"might be a dumb question but did that poem really rhyme in greek?"
Actually that was a line from a play by Aeschylus, not from a poem, so in the original Greek it was strictly metered, but did not rhyme. The meter was NOT reproduced in the translation I read.
Also, they said in that movie that Tredwell's efforts actually caused more bears to be killed by poachers. In attempting to "protect" the bears, he instead desensitized them to humans and made them much more susceptible to poachers. Many more bears were killed while Tredwell was there. Seriously, the guy must've been one of the biggest fucking morons on the planet. Talk about someone who accomplished ZERO.
To answer your question, I was referring to Cropper's understanding of man's relation to nature. He fully endorses gaining power over nature, and the conquest of nature. The absence of nature as a standard, leaves one single standard for manking and that is mere life (not the good life). This movement towards mere life or survival as a standard is one of the major reasons for postmodernism, and deep ecology is connected with postmodernism. I don't think his thought avoids the problem.
"This movement towards mere life or survival as a standard
I thought Environmentalism was advocating that - any humans alive should seamlessly integrate with nature, not taking a single iota more than they need.
I, on the other hand, am advocating the Good Life.
I do not see by what standard you would advocate the good life, if not by some conception of teleology, and if so it would be arbitrary to have a teleological conception of humans, but not of the rest of nature. A teleological conception of nature demands an attitude that would not revel in the conquering of nature.
Thousands die of malaria in third world countires where use of DDT is highly discouraged. DDT almost killed off misquitos but then it was banned or "highly discouraged". So pretty much all us industrilized nations are preventing 3rd world countires from advancing by killing off thousands of them to make sure a few flamingos wont die.
"You dehumanize a man as man as much by returning him to nature-by making him one with rocks, vegetation, and animals-as by turning him into a machine. Both the natural and the mechanical are the opposite of that which is uniquely human" -Eric Hoffer
"Treadwell was supposed to leave the park at his usual time of year, but he had a disagreement with the airline about his ticket and decided to stay longer in the park."
I think you are misrepresenting what motivates the average environmentalist. It's one thing to be in awe of nature and to feel revolt at the negative impact that human beings have caused, while working to protect and conserve the biosphere. It's another thing to believe in the 'goodness' of nature at the expense of common sense as Tim Treadwill did. There is nothing irrational about the general environmental movement.
I disagree. I believe in large those who actively support environmental issues (give the speeches, do the work) are human haters. They would prefer there be less of us, and we only lived as a quasi-classical Native American life (without the mass extinctions they caused). They would revert progress and allow for the mass death of most of humanity.
The passive supporters (the majority) by contrast are by in large people who 'like' nature, and are ignorant to what they are actually supporting.
I'm all for there being nature. I don't want extinctions and deforestation or apocalypse by global warming.
But human progress comes before the niceties of a park. What the religion of environmentalism is fighting is scientific progress, using the state to use threats of violence to change economies into socialistic 'green friendly' systems (which historically hasn't and doesn't work to improve the environment or human progress).
We don't need the government to be sure we don't kill ourselves.
I think the human species needs to seriously re-evaluate its relationship with the rest of the community of creatures on this planet. There is a mass extinction going on as we speak, the most devastating in 65 million years: 20,000-50,000 species disappear every year (avg. extinction rate is around 10 species a year). This is a direct result of habitat loss and resource depletion due to human industrialization. We are inhabiting the planet as a parasite and killing our host.
-- We are inhabiting the planet as a parasite and killing our host.--
Until we find a way to clone those critters for our own pleasure. A dog got cloned for the price of 15$US this year. In three decades, I bet you will able to clone yourself a zoo out of a box-set brought on E-Bay.
(I am looking forward cloning American Badgers. I just love that critter! :D )
I don't hate humanity. I am merely pointing out the facts of the current ecological situation on this planet. Human beings in their industrial mode of being are destroying the planet. There is nothing inherent to the human being that requires us to value unsustainable consumerism and continual expansion. If we are not able to shift our values to a more eco-centered way of life, we will, relatively soon, be on the list of the growing number of extinct species.
If we do not shift from a human-centered way of being to an earth-centered way, we will not survive. I think humanity is well worth saving, which is why I think altering our relations with the planet and its other inhabitants is crucial. I think it is absurd to believe our species can continue disregarding the ecological effect of its consumerist economy and still survive to see the next century. We'd need at least 4 more planets to have enough resources for everyone to live as an avg American.
ThouArtThat, I've debated with you before over whether we can ever know anything with any certainty. Apparently we can know nothing for certain except that we become parasites on the planet when we live full, active lives.
"We'd need at least 4 more planets to have enough resources for everyone to live as an avg American." Baloney. What we'd need is more ingenuity and entrepreneurship. People are the greatest resource.
Ingenuity and entrepreneurship will be helpful, but the problem runs far deeper, in my opinion. We cannot know anything for sure, but we must act on the approximate knowledge that we do have. Living a full, active life does not require that we decimate the habitats of all other beings on the planet for our own short term profits. And I hardly think consumerism and wholesome, active living go hand in hand.
"We cannot know anything for sure, but we must act on the approximate knowledge that we do have."
Like shooting fish in a barrell. Well, I'm game. *cracks knuckles* If we can't know anything for sure, how do we know when we have "approximate knowledge"? How do we know it's only "approximate"? And how do you know we "must act" on this "approximate" knowledge? How do you know there's such a thing as "approximate knowledge"?
Don't you see that every statement you make depends on absolutes?
"There is a mass extinction going on as we speak, the most devastating in 65 million years: 20,000-50,000 species disappear every year (avg. extinction rate is around 10 species a year)."
Where in the world do they get those numbers from? I'll bet the farm that they don't actually count individual species that go extinct. Furthermore, how can anyone possibly know how many species existed 2000 or 2 million or 200 million years ago to be able to accurately measure ten extinctions per year?
These numbers are based on statistical modeling of species population taking the fossil record into consideration, and if anything are probably on the low end because we've only named about 1/4th of the species on this planet. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus surrounding this mass extinction. Google: mass extinction, if you want the details.
"we've only named about 1/4th of the species on this planet."
Does this mean "We've only bothered naming 1/4 of the species we've encountered" or "We hazard a guess that there are 4 times the number of species we've encountered"? I won't believe the former for a second; we name things we encounter. The second can be no more than an educated guess.
I'm not doubting that a lot of extinctions are happening; I'm doubting the possibility of accurately guessing how many species there are.
Yes, I meant the second. Hypotheses range anywhere from 5-100 million species (most of which would be insects) are alive on the planet, with about 2 million having been named.
Ecologists have used mathematical modeling to come up with the numbers for the extinction rate. They are not perfect numbers, but we don't need to be exact. If our most capable scientists hypothesize that the current extinction rate is many thousands of times higher than the average background rate, I take it seriously.
"If our most capable scientists hypothesize that the current extinction rate is many thousands of times higher than the average background rate, I take it seriously."
Don't you realize that new species are arising? Do you want the planet to hold still for your environmentalism religion?
It's as though the environmentalists understand the biological concept that diversity of species beneficial to an entire ecosyste, but they routinely fail to grasp the even more fundamental idea that the decline of species is just as integral to the survival of an ecosystem.
Also, what are your thoughts regarding anthropocentric environmentalism--that is, the concept of maintaining the ecosystem in a manner that fulfills the goals of human survival and prosperity?
Well, there are different perspectives. Personally, I want technology and ecosystems integrated. I also think "nature" is aesthetically pleasing, so being surrounded by such a synthesis is very appealing to me. So really I want man to design with the knowledge of ecosystems for better ways of living.
No. Treadwell just actually took the movement to its logical conclusion. You and most other "average environmentalists" fail to do that and instead live a schism.
Are you saying there is no middle ground when it comes to the environment? We have to totally exploit it and allow our population to run wild or we have to kill off humans and/or go tribal? That's a straw man argument. A little change is better than no change at all.
"Are you saying there is no middle ground when it comes to the environment? We have to totally exploit it and allow our population to run wild or we have to kill off humans and/or go tribal? "
We should be exploiting the earth for every last atom of it. You are equating exploitation with destruction. Most of the problems that you are envisioning will be fixed through technological development. I recommend George Reisman's book "Capitalism" for more information on this.
Did you have the permission of these children, and their parents, to be included in your video?
Eltercero 2 months ago
Nature worship is a mental disorder.
1StoryImageFigure1 8 months ago
did he say we came from monkeys?
VEMUSIC 1 year ago
It was nice to see you teaching them the truth.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
I feel sorry for him. He was raised to love animals the way he did. The movie showed his family raising squirrels when he was a kid.
scarlettsnowe 2 years ago
Your obsessive blaming of Kant for all ills is...well...obsessive.
Drastam 2 years ago
Lets face the fact nature is nothing more then horror house. Nature is a 24 hour day slaughter house.
thewolverineanalyzer 2 years ago
the word nature has been watered down so much... human civilization is part of nature yes? so what Treadwell sought was a life in the wild, and honestly I think it's pretty clear that he spent so much time there because he enjoyed it, and maybe "protecting the bears" was the only excuse to allow him to do something so crazy. he wasn't up there studying environmentalist dogma, he was doing whatever he wanted to do.. barely a civil disobedience. MrCropper why do you hate freedom?
accordingtome 2 years ago
"MrCropper why do you hate freedom?"
Wow, you are being ridiculous. Go ahead and substantiate that, please.
MrCropper 2 years ago
to criticize a man for living secluded in the wild and "worshiping nature" i find to be a gross misinterpretation of what he was really doing: being an escapist, and rediscovering in the most primordial manner what it is to be human. To deny someone that right, on the grounds that they are a fanatic, would be denying them a basic freedom.
is this really a matter of grave concern? devoted environmentalists (slash idealists) putting their own lives in danger?
accordingtome 2 years ago
While you're at it, what makes you think protecting the bears is an "excuse" for anything?
hypnodance 2 years ago
"who cares about the environment anyway?"
So we agree?
MrCropper 2 years ago
Well, *I* don't. >:(
hypnodance 2 years ago
i think it would be a lot more useful for people to understand that skyscrapers and the monetary system, etc. are part of nature too, they are things that are inseparable from the "natural." Just as a termite nest is a natural phenomenon and a beehive, and wolf pack, and a forest and so on, so are the things that man achieves, because it is in his nature to strive for such accomplishments. It really needs a platonic distortion to separate a man and his actions from nature itself. (see F. Bacon)
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago
The whole movie was about was about a mentally ill man being consumed by his passion. The point wasn't about disproving recycling.
TheScrewOnHead 3 years ago
I enjoy human society, and I also fear bear confrontations. But I do not call his beliefs silly. Remember how he recorded the bear that presumably killed him? He knew the risk he was taking. Martyrs don't recant in their last moment of agony. Otherwise he might as well bring a gun.
nhuebert 3 years ago 2
If he took a gun, that would imply that he felt that his life was of more important than any bear's. You fear bears and you do not have an understanding of them on the level that he did. As strange and socially awkward as he was, can you blame him for feeling personally out of place in human society? You prove his point that he did not fit in with people. His human nature was not as natural as you say it should be. Bears on a ship? Well if they feel like sailing.....
nhuebert 3 years ago
"There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for."
— Albert Camus
nhuebert 3 years ago 3
"There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for."
— Albert Camus
I have even less respect for Camus now, if I had any.
MrCropper 3 years ago
@MrCropper lol agree. this quote by camus would make passive docile people unknowing for fight for themselves.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
Teddy Roosevelt was an outspoken critic of the anthropomorphism of animals. He was an avid hunter and thought it was a crime to misinform children of the nature of wild creatures.
JDizzely 3 years ago
I'd like to hear the thinking behind your decision to show that documentary to those kids. I'm hesitant to agree that it is something they should watch at that age, but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of pedagogy.
(Besides, even if he hadn't been killed, just being exposed to Timothy Treadwell's personality for 90 minutes would seem to be traumatic).
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
"I'd like to hear the thinking behind your decision to show that documentary to those kids. "
There aren't many documentaries that show in such an obvious way how dangerous and silly nature worship is. And the kids have a LOT of nature worship inculcated from the public schools - species going extinct, landfills running out of room... I wouldn't have introduced them to these subjects, but since they've been started on it, I do what I can to show them how silly it all is.
MrCropper 3 years ago
A existentialist dream come true... to be consumed by one's purpose. Cheers.
NLPNVC 3 years ago
Wow. When I watch the kids at the end it is so politically IN-correct that it makes me wince. This wincing reflex was beat into me by a liberal arts education. It should be obvious now that bears, captive show tigers, and stingrays are killing machines. They get by in nature because they kill what they eat. Their violent tendencies are not the product of men with "bad consumerist philosophies".
otonanoC 3 years ago
Timothy Treadwell truly fell in love with life.
acephalism 3 years ago
"Nature is a set of laws for us to investigate." I'd like to provide an addendum here: Nature is a set of laws for us to investigate and exploit. One of the most wonderful things about humanity qua humanity is our ability to exploit the universe around us in a selfish manner.
Also, Mr. Cropper, I really enjoy your matter-of-fact style of teaching. It's a very good thing that you speak to your students so frankly about death, which is, sadly, usually dodged by most teachers.
Aotommo 3 years ago
Amen! - I had an argument with a friend along these lines about what is nature. My stance is the same as yours: humans are a part of nature and as we create from it and nothing more. I stated that a computer is as much a part of nature as anything else and the other person lost it. They could not answer how it was created if it was not made by man and from one or more elements. The only thing that they could retort was "I feel that... - "Kant was the first hippy!" Hilarious!
bencurkendall 3 years ago
Comment removed
CognitiveNiche 3 years ago
Comment removed
CognitiveNiche 3 years ago
Comment removed
CognitiveNiche 3 years ago
A1. This reminds me of a similar man who was glorified on 20/20. He lives among wolves, & even convinced his girlfriend to live in the woods w/ him & the wolves. I fear that they might 1 day share that fate.
I find it sad that this happened. I think there's a certain hubris involved. The man came into much greater proximity to bears than most people, & so he understood them in a way that most people don't. But it doesn't follow from that that this man could always predict how they'd behave.
legendre007 3 years ago
A2. MrCropper, what do U think of cases where an animal is used for entertainment purposes, & then the animal turns on its trainer & attacks him? The white tiger attacked half the magician team of Siegfried & Roy, & an elephant at a circus on Oahu killed its trainer. PETA cites such cases as proof that we humans are full of hubris to believe that we can control animals; they see this as the wilderness getting its revenge.
legendre007 3 years ago
A3. & yet, MrCropper, here is a case where a man who reveres the wilderness above human nature (human nature being the ability to employ a rational faculty to reshape the environment to suit human purposes) is attacked by an animal, & U cite this case to argue a point that is exactly the opposite of the point PETA makes when domesticated animals turn on their owners. What do U say to PETA members who say that animal attacks on humans bespeak man's moral inferiority & metaphysical puniness?
legendre007 3 years ago
A4. I do hold Nature as supreme, but I don't define Nature the way that most people do. I think of Nature, not as a wilderness that is alien to man's artificial doings, but of the Laws of Nature -- everything metaphysically given. Today's "Nature Worshippers" believe nature must not be used for selfish human purposes; just obeyed. But, to rework something Bacon said, I believe that we should "obey" Nature insofar as doing so allows us to "command" Nature for our own self-interested purposes.
legendre007 3 years ago
A5. MrCropper, it was great when, as you spoke to the kids, you flailed your arms around in such an animated fashion. As YouTube is a visual medium, your YouTube vlogs would be even more attention-grabbing if such lively gestures were incorporated into your vlogs. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago 2
Bears, tigers and wolves, etc cannot be domesticated. They can be trained but they are always wild. Trainers must know this and act accordingly. It is tragic for them but they have chosen that life. A trainer should always be on guard of wild animals acting wild. Pets are animals which can be domesticated. They lose practically all of their wild nature and depend on man for survival. I think it might be genetic. They can still be violent when mistreated but pose a much lower risk to man.
zardozcs 3 years ago
"what do U think of cases where an animal is used for entertainment purposes, & then the animal turns on its trainer & attacks him?"
Such an animal should be killed or caged permanently.
MrCropper 3 years ago
What I meant is that PETA cites those as examples of real-life Frankenstein stories. Like Dr. Frankenstein, the animal trainer believes that he can master nature, & the animal turning against him is like "Nature"/the Frankenstein Monster rebelling against man for the hubris of trying to control the non-human. U cited Treadwell's case of what happens when men assume that the wilderness is gentle. What do U think of that contrast? I agree w/ U, but Y R U more right than the Frankenstein parable?
legendre007 3 years ago
Actually bears are much more dangerous then wolves. Bears arnt very social even among thier own kind, on the other hand wolves are very social, even been know to take in human child and they become some wolf kid. 0.o Humans were able to get wovles as companions... still it would suck for this dude to break the streak off no one in north America being killed by a wolf...
FoxHatesMe 3 years ago
might be a dumb question but did that poem really rhyme in greek?
gabrielevery 3 years ago
"might be a dumb question but did that poem really rhyme in greek?"
Actually that was a line from a play by Aeschylus, not from a poem, so in the original Greek it was strictly metered, but did not rhyme. The meter was NOT reproduced in the translation I read.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Quite an ironic story.
About the whole "new religion" issue.. It is certainly a way of life for many.
lunida 3 years ago
a-fucking-men
turboskanker 3 years ago
Also, they said in that movie that Tredwell's efforts actually caused more bears to be killed by poachers. In attempting to "protect" the bears, he instead desensitized them to humans and made them much more susceptible to poachers. Many more bears were killed while Tredwell was there. Seriously, the guy must've been one of the biggest fucking morons on the planet. Talk about someone who accomplished ZERO.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 5
--Talk about someone who accomplished ZERO--
Well, he ended-up as tasty chew for the bears. Not quite an achievement but an honest result on witch his sense of life brought him.
SatanicCod 3 years ago 2
I feel bad for the bears, the bears probably wanted to be killed after meeting Tredwell.
WarVideo 3 years ago 4
Grizzlyman was a bizarrrrrrre movie. There was one scene where he cried over a dead bumblebee. Ha.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Keep up the good work with the school!
cad40324 3 years ago 2
To answer your question, I was referring to Cropper's understanding of man's relation to nature. He fully endorses gaining power over nature, and the conquest of nature. The absence of nature as a standard, leaves one single standard for manking and that is mere life (not the good life). This movement towards mere life or survival as a standard is one of the major reasons for postmodernism, and deep ecology is connected with postmodernism. I don't think his thought avoids the problem.
AestheticizeAnalog 3 years ago
"The absence of nature as a standard, leaves one single standard for manking and that is mere life (not the good life)."
You're going to have to explain that one.
nine9s 3 years ago
"This movement towards mere life or survival as a standard
I thought Environmentalism was advocating that - any humans alive should seamlessly integrate with nature, not taking a single iota more than they need.
I, on the other hand, am advocating the Good Life.
MrCropper 3 years ago
I do not see by what standard you would advocate the good life, if not by some conception of teleology, and if so it would be arbitrary to have a teleological conception of humans, but not of the rest of nature. A teleological conception of nature demands an attitude that would not revel in the conquering of nature.
AestheticizeAnalog 3 years ago
You are quite hilarious. You seem to take the exact position that leads to other positions you have critiqued and despise.
AestheticizeAnalog 3 years ago
Care to explain? It is not so obvious to the rest of us dumb, irrational people.
cad40324 3 years ago
Neo pagan Earth Worship
lengthyounarther 3 years ago
Thousands die of malaria in third world countires where use of DDT is highly discouraged. DDT almost killed off misquitos but then it was banned or "highly discouraged". So pretty much all us industrilized nations are preventing 3rd world countires from advancing by killing off thousands of them to make sure a few flamingos wont die.
The war on pollution is sure to be won.
Fight global warming, kill some humans.
FoxHatesMe 3 years ago
Everyone needs to read *The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution* by Ayn Rand (where I believe the quote about Kant being a hippie comes from).
PWitness 3 years ago
Bears are misunderstood huh? Well joke's on him since he's the one who misunderstood the bears.
NotThat3 3 years ago 2
"You dehumanize a man as man as much by returning him to nature-by making him one with rocks, vegetation, and animals-as by turning him into a machine. Both the natural and the mechanical are the opposite of that which is uniquely human" -Eric Hoffer
DotPaulish 3 years ago 3
Nice quote!
Both don't need a human mind, just reflexes and intuition.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Wow. You are right on. That is pretty much the context Eric Hoffer was using the quote in.
DotPaulish 3 years ago
I am glad to know that we are on the same page.
I am a fan of the writer/philosopher named Ayn Rand and I thought that it would had been her way to voice an answer to Mr. Hoffer's quote.
I take note of this author, he will be quite pleasant to read.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
I am aware of Ayn Rand :) I think she did a lot of great work, but I do disagree with her in places.
Eric Hoffer is a phenomenal writer. I suggest you start with his first book "The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements".
His writing arms you with perfect little quotes to use in debate. He has an intentionally aphoristic writing style which also makes him easy to read.
DotPaulish 3 years ago
Well, I can't say that I will go to bed ignorant tonight! :)
Many thanks for the invitation to read Mr. Hoffer's works. Be sure that I will pay him all the attention he deserves.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Thanks for the recommendation!
cad40324 3 years ago
Nature is a resource. ;-)
rambo26 3 years ago 4
There's nothing wrong with worshipping nature as long as you don't have a bear fetish.
LothairApoclyane 3 years ago
I'd read about treadwell. Bizarre story.
p717 3 years ago
"Treadwell was supposed to leave the park at his usual time of year, but he had a disagreement with the airline about his ticket and decided to stay longer in the park."
The cause was from an airline ticket.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
Hmm, even if that was the cause, the man was nuts. I just saw a video on him. It seems to be more related to mental illness.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
I think you are misrepresenting what motivates the average environmentalist. It's one thing to be in awe of nature and to feel revolt at the negative impact that human beings have caused, while working to protect and conserve the biosphere. It's another thing to believe in the 'goodness' of nature at the expense of common sense as Tim Treadwill did. There is nothing irrational about the general environmental movement.
mejirodude 3 years ago
I disagree. I believe in large those who actively support environmental issues (give the speeches, do the work) are human haters. They would prefer there be less of us, and we only lived as a quasi-classical Native American life (without the mass extinctions they caused). They would revert progress and allow for the mass death of most of humanity.
The passive supporters (the majority) by contrast are by in large people who 'like' nature, and are ignorant to what they are actually supporting.
TuesdaysThursdays 3 years ago
Not me, I view us as the highest being on this earth. The problem lies in our thinking with how we live. We need the ecosystems for our survival.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
I'm all for there being nature. I don't want extinctions and deforestation or apocalypse by global warming.
But human progress comes before the niceties of a park. What the religion of environmentalism is fighting is scientific progress, using the state to use threats of violence to change economies into socialistic 'green friendly' systems (which historically hasn't and doesn't work to improve the environment or human progress).
We don't need the government to be sure we don't kill ourselves.
TuesdaysThursdays 3 years ago
Comment removed
mejirodude 3 years ago
I think the human species needs to seriously re-evaluate its relationship with the rest of the community of creatures on this planet. There is a mass extinction going on as we speak, the most devastating in 65 million years: 20,000-50,000 species disappear every year (avg. extinction rate is around 10 species a year). This is a direct result of habitat loss and resource depletion due to human industrialization. We are inhabiting the planet as a parasite and killing our host.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
-- We are inhabiting the planet as a parasite and killing our host.--
Until we find a way to clone those critters for our own pleasure. A dog got cloned for the price of 15$US this year. In three decades, I bet you will able to clone yourself a zoo out of a box-set brought on E-Bay.
(I am looking forward cloning American Badgers. I just love that critter! :D )
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Why do you hate yourself?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
I don't hate humanity. I am merely pointing out the facts of the current ecological situation on this planet. Human beings in their industrial mode of being are destroying the planet. There is nothing inherent to the human being that requires us to value unsustainable consumerism and continual expansion. If we are not able to shift our values to a more eco-centered way of life, we will, relatively soon, be on the list of the growing number of extinct species.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
If we do not shift from a human-centered way of being to an earth-centered way, we will not survive. I think humanity is well worth saving, which is why I think altering our relations with the planet and its other inhabitants is crucial. I think it is absurd to believe our species can continue disregarding the ecological effect of its consumerist economy and still survive to see the next century. We'd need at least 4 more planets to have enough resources for everyone to live as an avg American.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
ThouArtThat, I've debated with you before over whether we can ever know anything with any certainty. Apparently we can know nothing for certain except that we become parasites on the planet when we live full, active lives.
"We'd need at least 4 more planets to have enough resources for everyone to live as an avg American." Baloney. What we'd need is more ingenuity and entrepreneurship. People are the greatest resource.
nine9s 3 years ago 2
Ingenuity and entrepreneurship will be helpful, but the problem runs far deeper, in my opinion. We cannot know anything for sure, but we must act on the approximate knowledge that we do have. Living a full, active life does not require that we decimate the habitats of all other beings on the planet for our own short term profits. And I hardly think consumerism and wholesome, active living go hand in hand.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
"We cannot know anything for sure, but we must act on the approximate knowledge that we do have."
Like shooting fish in a barrell. Well, I'm game. *cracks knuckles* If we can't know anything for sure, how do we know when we have "approximate knowledge"? How do we know it's only "approximate"? And how do you know we "must act" on this "approximate" knowledge? How do you know there's such a thing as "approximate knowledge"?
Don't you see that every statement you make depends on absolutes?
nine9s 3 years ago
zomg its the ghost of socrates come to haunt you matt!
simonodell 3 years ago
"There is a mass extinction going on as we speak, the most devastating in 65 million years: 20,000-50,000 species disappear every year (avg. extinction rate is around 10 species a year)."
Where in the world do they get those numbers from? I'll bet the farm that they don't actually count individual species that go extinct. Furthermore, how can anyone possibly know how many species existed 2000 or 2 million or 200 million years ago to be able to accurately measure ten extinctions per year?
nine9s 3 years ago
These numbers are based on statistical modeling of species population taking the fossil record into consideration, and if anything are probably on the low end because we've only named about 1/4th of the species on this planet. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus surrounding this mass extinction. Google: mass extinction, if you want the details.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
"we've only named about 1/4th of the species on this planet."
Does this mean "We've only bothered naming 1/4 of the species we've encountered" or "We hazard a guess that there are 4 times the number of species we've encountered"? I won't believe the former for a second; we name things we encounter. The second can be no more than an educated guess.
I'm not doubting that a lot of extinctions are happening; I'm doubting the possibility of accurately guessing how many species there are.
nine9s 3 years ago
Yes, I meant the second. Hypotheses range anywhere from 5-100 million species (most of which would be insects) are alive on the planet, with about 2 million having been named.
Ecologists have used mathematical modeling to come up with the numbers for the extinction rate. They are not perfect numbers, but we don't need to be exact. If our most capable scientists hypothesize that the current extinction rate is many thousands of times higher than the average background rate, I take it seriously.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
"If our most capable scientists hypothesize that the current extinction rate is many thousands of times higher than the average background rate, I take it seriously."
Don't you realize that new species are arising? Do you want the planet to hold still for your environmentalism religion?
MrCropper 3 years ago
It's as though the environmentalists understand the biological concept that diversity of species beneficial to an entire ecosyste, but they routinely fail to grasp the even more fundamental idea that the decline of species is just as integral to the survival of an ecosystem.
Also, what are your thoughts regarding anthropocentric environmentalism--that is, the concept of maintaining the ecosystem in a manner that fulfills the goals of human survival and prosperity?
Aotommo 3 years ago
Well, there are different perspectives. Personally, I want technology and ecosystems integrated. I also think "nature" is aesthetically pleasing, so being surrounded by such a synthesis is very appealing to me. So really I want man to design with the knowledge of ecosystems for better ways of living.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
Ideas like biosphere 2 are one approach to this idea of synthesizing.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
But of course better design than that is necessary.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
No. Treadwell just actually took the movement to its logical conclusion. You and most other "average environmentalists" fail to do that and instead live a schism.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Are you saying there is no middle ground when it comes to the environment? We have to totally exploit it and allow our population to run wild or we have to kill off humans and/or go tribal? That's a straw man argument. A little change is better than no change at all.
mejirodude 3 years ago
"Are you saying there is no middle ground when it comes to the environment? We have to totally exploit it and allow our population to run wild or we have to kill off humans and/or go tribal? "
We should be exploiting the earth for every last atom of it. You are equating exploitation with destruction. Most of the problems that you are envisioning will be fixed through technological development. I recommend George Reisman's book "Capitalism" for more information on this.
incrediblemulk42 3 years ago