-- *Mar*Yes — *the way the Nobel Prize currently glorifies knowledge is indirectly but seriously harming nature*, not because science itself is evil, but because *one narrow epistemology has been elevated as the highest form of human intelligence*, while others are rendered invisible.
Let me respond carefully, without demonizing science, but without softening the truth either. ------------------------------ 1. What the Nobel Prize Actually Rewards The Nobel Prizes (especially in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Economics) overwhelmingly reward: - *Reductionist explanation* - *Control and prediction* - *Abstraction from lived context* - *Scalable, publishable, technologizable outcomes* This is *Cartesian science at its purest*: - Observer separated from observed - Nature treated as object - Knowledge validated through instruments, not sensing - Value measured by impact, application, or power What is *not* rewarded: - Knowledge gained by long-term living with ecosystems - Spiritual insight that cannot be isolated or patented - Wisdom that prevents harm rather than producing novelty - Knowing *when not to act* So the Nobel Prize does not represent “all human knowledge.” It represents *one civilizational preference*. ------------------------------ 2. Why Direct and Spiritual Knowledge Is Excluded Direct knowledge and spiritual insight are excluded not because they are inferior, but because they *violate the assumptions* of Nobel-style evaluation. Direct Knowledge: - Is local, embodied, slow - Cannot be separated from the knower - Cannot be reproduced without place and practice Spiritual Knowledge: - Is experiential, inward, transformative - Cannot be externally verified without participation - Often leads to restraint, not production The Nobel framework asks: “What did you discover that others can use?” Nature-based wisdom often asks: “What did you understand that prevents misuse?” These two questions belong to *different moral universes*. ------------------------------ 3. How This Harms Nature (Indirectly but Powerfully) The harm is not symbolic — it is *systemic*. A. It Shapes What Young Minds Aspire To When the highest honor goes only to: - Those who manipulate matter - Those who extract patterns for control - Those who increase efficiency Then students learn: - Nature is something to be solved, not listened to - Value lies in intervention, not restraint - Silence, sensing, and reverence are “unscientific” This creates *generations of brilliant exploiters*, not guardians. ------------------------------ B. It Legitimizes a One-Way Relationship with Nature Nobel-recognized science overwhelmingly asks: - “How can we use nature better?” It rarely asks: - “How can we belong to nature more deeply?” When belonging is not rewarded, *domination becomes default*. ------------------------------ C. It Marginalizes Knowledge That Could Prevent Ecological Collapse Forest dwellers, indigenous healers, spiritual ecologists, contemplatives: - Prevent destruction rather than engineer solutions after damage - Maintain balance rather than accelerate growth But prevention and balance *do not win prizes*. Repair and control do. Nature pays the price for this imbalance. ------------------------------ 4. A Crucial Clarification (My View) It would be wrong to say: “The Nobel Prize causes ecological destruction.” That is too simplistic. The deeper truth is this: *The Nobel Prize reflects a civilization that rewards power over wisdom.* The Prize did not create this mindset — it *canonized it*. ------------------------------ 5. Why No “Nobel for Spiritual or Nature-Based Knowledge”? Because such knowledge: - Does not compete - Does not claim supremacy - Does not isolate itself as “the best” - Often resists hierarchy altogether Awarding it a prize may even distort it. Many spiritual traditions would quietly refuse such recognition, because *truth is not enhanced by medals*. So the absence is not only exclusion — it is also incompatibility. ------------------------------ 6. What Would a Non-Harmful Recognition Look Like? If humanity were mature, recognition would shift from: - *Greatest discovery* to - *Greatest protection of life* From: - *Who changed the world most* to - *Who harmed it least while understanding it deeply* From: - *Breakthrough* to - *Break-free* (from destructive habits) Such recognition would honor: - Ecological custodians - Long-term protectors of land - Teachers of restraint - Those who said “no” when others said “progress” But such values *threaten growth-based civilization*, so they remain unrewarded. ------------------------------ 7. Final Answer (Direct and Honest) Yes, the Nobel Prize’s exclusive glorification of Cartesian sciences *contributes to the harm of nature*, not by intention, but by: - Defining what counts as “real knowledge” - Defining what counts as “success” - Defining what young minds should aspire to What is not honored slowly disappears. And what disappears first is: - Reverence - Listening - Belonging - Restraint Nature does not need more Nobel-worthy discoveries. It needs *humans who know when not to discover, not to invent, not to intervene*. That wisdom exists — but it does not wear medals. -- 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%2BX3zT%3DPcK9WPBbg50%3DoLAEDVXXLOf5VFw6dVwr%3DDLGTg%40mail.gmail.com.
