-- *Mar*
Response Vs Non-response In the free and healthy nature, the message from an organism was received by every other organism, creating the instant response. The communications translated into hormonal messages and reached the cells of each organism. The Biosphere was a huge network of communications and responses. The internal hormonal communications of all organisms fused, making the Biosphere one single organism. Every organism prospered as a limb of nature. There was a functioning macro anatomy of the Biosphere. Every forest became a community of diverse organisms. Every forest developed a personality. The messages and responses were almost reflexive. The forest became a single organism. The interactions and exchanges kept pace with the natural evolution, participating in the physical and educational growth of each organism. Ecology was the governing path creating the macro determinism. A free and healthy forest automatically includes you and knows everything about you as feelings are sensed and responded. Even today, with nature under continuous destruction, one gets health and often solutions to problems in any forest half destroyed. The basic feature of nature is symbiotic response. Today we neither expect response and interaction nor can nature respond. Scoffing at this feature has become scientific. The non response has become all pervading. The very concept of conversation with any organism other than the human has become weird. In the case of fellow humans egoism, egomania, distrust, rivalry, differences in paradigms…many make clear interactions almost impossible. Even in academic subjects we struggle with definitions and scopes. And we are attempting understanding among us after removing the enabling symbiotic nature. Nature is bypassed with books and technology. Once education was interacting directly with nature. Today destroying nature for economic activity has become education. We are all captives of books and computers, rarely trying to get response directly from nature. During the days of Theism; one stared at nature to get answers and solutions. A few actually tried to read nature instead of books. Today a student simply cannot directly interact with nature and develop his/her own understanding. Thanks to economic activity the very faculty of response directly from nature is getting maimed continuously. Every university is under the frenzy of technology. Technology spells tragedy and disaster to the Biosphere. No organism out of the millions and millions of specie can understand or use technology. It is the weapon the humans use for fighting in the Social Darwinism. Atheism simply is non-expectation of response directly from nature. It is just the euphemism for believing only technology and actually in the economic subjugation and destruction of nature. We are fighting the planet earth. It is time that economics is defined as what it is-the science or cult of destruction of nature. Every University must immediately start a ‘Free Nature Park’ without human tampering so that the University gives real education and not the present caricature created by technology and the basic objective made economic. Today we are living in the era of nature which does not and cannot respond. This is basically the age of non-response. YM Sarma Chat gpt Below is an *ecological commentary* on the text you provided. I’m not judging the author’s worldview but interpreting it through contemporary ecological science, systems thinking, and environmental ethics. ------------------------------ *Ecological Commentary: “Response vs Non-response”* The text presents a worldview in which the *Biosphere is understood as a single, responsive organism*, and argues that modern technological society has severed humanity’s ability to receive ecological feedback. From an ecological and systems-science standpoint, several themes emerge: ------------------------------ *1. The Biosphere as a Single Responsive Organism* Ecology recognizes strong parallels between ecosystems and organisms: - *Ecosystems exhibit feedback loops*, homeostasis-like processes, and networks of communication (e.g., chemical signaling among trees, pheromone trails among insects, nutrient cycling). - Forests are indeed *communities of interconnected organisms* whose interactions create emergent properties, such as microclimates, soil formation, and resilience. - Modern research (e.g., Suzanne Simard’s “wood-wide web”) shows that trees *exchange chemical and electrical signals* through mycorrhizal networks, sometimes even supporting genetically unrelated neighbors. However, the notion of the *entire Biosphere acting as a singular organism*—a macro-anatomy with unified hormonal-like communication—is metaphorical. It parallels the *Gaia Hypothesis*: Earth’s biota and physical environment form a self-regulating system. While not literally an organism with one nervous system, Earth can be considered an *integrated complex system* whose subsystems co-evolve. So ecologically, the idea of a “responsive nature” is *symbolically valid* and partially supported, but not literally in the physiological sense. ------------------------------ *2. The Idea of “Response” as Connection to Ecological Feedback* The essay argues that in a healthy natural world: - organisms constantly receive *signals* from other organisms, - humans were once immersed in this network, - modern society has lost the ability to sense this feedback. >From an ecological perspective, this is partly true: *Human disconnection* Industrial societies are indeed: - more indoors, - more sedentary, - less directly engaged with land, wildlife, and cycles of seasons, - dependent on mediated experiences (screens, books, data). This reduces *ecological literacy* and the ability to detect early warning signals of environmental degradation. Many Indigenous cultures still maintain exactly the kind of *immersive ecological responsiveness* described in the text. *Nature’s “non-response”* Nature is not actually non-responsive—ecosystems continue to respond to stress, change, and human actions. But humanity has: - disrupted the communication networks within ecosystems (deforestation, pollution), - simplified ecosystems (monocultures, habitat loss), - reduced biodiversity (which lowers the “communication complexity”), - drowned natural signals in technological and economic noise. In this interpretation, “non-response” really means *a loss of our perception and respect for ecological feedback*, not nature’s literal failure to communicate. ------------------------------ *3. The Role of Education* The text criticizes education for: - prioritizing technology over ecological experience, - using nature as a resource rather than a teacher, - replacing direct observation with abstractions. Ecologically speaking, this critique has merit *when applied to mainstream, industrialized education systems*. Modern ecology emphasizes: - place-based learning, - field studies, - experiential understanding, - emotional and ethical connection to ecosystems. Many environmental educators advocate for *“rewilding education”*—bringing direct, unmediated nature contact back into learning. The idea of *a “Free Nature Park”* at every university aligns with: - restorative ecology, - outdoor education, - conservation pedagogy, - biophilic campus design. It is actually consistent with evidence suggesting that *contact with biodiverse nature improves cognitive performance, emotional well-being, and ecological awareness*. ------------------------------ *4. Technology as “Destruction of Nature”* The text portrays technology as inherently antagonistic to the Biosphere. Ecologically, this is too broad. Technology can be: *Destructive* - fossil-fuel extraction, - industrial agriculture, - plastic production, - mass deforestation. *Beneficial* - renewable energy, - habitat restoration tools, - geographic information systems (GIS) for conservation, - genetic tools for biodiversity preservation, - ecological modeling. >From an ecological standpoint, *technology itself is not the villain*—the issue is *value systems, economic incentives, and unsustainable design*. Ecology supports a concept called: *“Technological Ecological Integration”* technology that complements natural systems rather than dominates them. ------------------------------ *5. Economics as Anti-Ecology* The text claims economics is a “science of destruction of nature.” Ecologically, this matches the critique of: - *externalities* (ecological costs not counted), - *growth-driven models* incompatible with finite ecosystems, - *tragedy-of-the-commons dynamics*, - *overexploitation*. Contemporary fields like *ecological economics*, *doughnut economics*, and *regenerative economics* arose precisely to counter this, placing: - ecological limits, - biodiversity, - long-term stability above short-term profit. So the critique is fair relative to *mainstream industrial economics*, though overstated as a universal claim. ------------------------------ *6. The Age of Non-Response* Ecologically, we are in an age where: - ecosystems still respond, - but we fail to listen or interpret. Climate change, species collapse, and soil degradation are massive ecological responses—signals—but human society filters them through politics, markets, and technology, obscuring the meaning of the message. Thus, the author is correct that *we have severed the symbiotic dialogue*, but not that nature is incapable of responding. We have simply placed ourselves outside the feedback loops we evolved with. ------------------------------ *Conclusion* >From an ecological perspective, the text is: - *Metaphorically strong* – reflecting a holistic systems-view of nature. - *Emotionally resonant* – capturing the disconnection felt in the Anthropocene. - *Partially aligned with science* – especially in describing ecological networks, biodiversity, and the consequences of disconnection. - *Overgeneralized at times* – particularly regarding technology and the literal physiological unity of the Biosphere. But its central message is ecologically valid: *Sustainability depends on restoring our responsiveness to nature’s feedback.* The text is ultimately a call to re-enter the ecological conversation—one we have muted through urbanization, technological dependency, and economic priorities. If you’d like, I can also provide: - a *condensed summary*, - a *scientific critique*, - a *rewritten version* for publication, or - a *philosophical or spiritual interpretation*. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BvwrwH9xL2MSiBW5NOmAe1NYzFE8hQKzhhK13AfB%2BEmg%40mail.gmail.com.
