> [DMB] > There is that bit about being an enemy of nature rather than a part of > it so I > think John has a point. > > [Arlo] > OK. This reduces the sentence to "SOM causes man to become > disharmonious with > nature". This would also make "man" unique in the cosmos as being the > only > creature/pattern able to act "against nature". Doesn't this just foster > S/O > based thinking, though? Here is this pristine nature, and then along > comes > "man" to go against it? > > My opinion is that this style terminology is a whole can of worms ,that > costs a > lot more than it gives.
[Mary Replies] I'm with you Arlo. We do not stand outside of nature. I'm always puzzled by ecologists saying man is destroying the planet. Well, hmmm. I don't like pollution any more than the next person, but it's sort of the natural culmination of events, after all. We messed it up, we should be able to fix it, and both things are 'of nature'. Mankind is so stuck on itself. We somehow think we are above it all. In control. If we were in so much control we wouldn't have mucked up Earth in the first place. It's perfectly natural for us to muck up the Earth. Hopefully, it will be perfectly natural for us to notice that and try to fix it. Problem is, our attempts to fix it will probably just muck it up more in some subtler way, even harder to fix, etc. I guess from an ecologist's point of view, the Earth would be so perfect and pristine if only there weren't all those pesky humans running around messing it all up. Excuse me, but nature is where our brains came from. No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should, Mary Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
