/lit/ - Literature

>>21324525
Heidegger.

>>21324525
Funny thing is that a great point in the movie you posted is that men and industrialization are part of nature. Species shitting things up when there isn't a superior predator or other deterrents is not unique to humans, it happens all the time. It's business as usual.

>>21324542
Who?

Does anyone explain the loss in average level of culture of the humans after about half the 20th century (or before)?

>>21324760
Uncle Ted.

>>21324760
Emile, on education.
> “So long as one remains in the same condition, the inclinations which result from habit and are the least natural to us can be kept; but as soon as the situation changes, habit ceases and the natural returns.
Education is certainly only habit. Now are there not people who forget and lose their education? Others who keep it? Where does this difference come from? If the name nature were limited to habits conformable to nature, we would spare ourselves this garble!”

>>21324525
So I'm not an average republitard or something and actually support climate change measures, especially preservation ones
But when you really think about it this whole 'industry caused climate change is evil' type stuff is really fucking dumb from a moral standpoint that uses nature as a focal point.
The one law of nature is might makes right. On top of that there have been multiple extinction tier events in history that wiped out 95% of biodiversity on earth, multiple times. Extinction is unironically the most natural thing around. Nature adapts and changes.
Now I don't think we should let just go around clubbing seals for fun and letting rare species of bees die out because I do care about that kind of stuff but the moral argument from nature seems kind of contradictory

>>21325096
Nature doesnt care, durr, such intelligent insights. Nobody is appealing to nature, humans are selfish and want to preserve or reminiscence a "wholeness".

Its all for us, its not for nature.

>>21324760
adorno

>>21325096
The very word nature loses its meaning entirely when you try to twist it into including everything humans do. If Manhattan is "part of nature," you have eliminated any useful function the word could possibly have.
Humans are destroying the planet. The process is locked in, it gets more hellish by the year, and by the time you and I die it won't be possible for anyone to bury their head in the sand about that anymore. The fact that mass extinctions have happened in the past isn't very reassuring when we're staring down the barrel of mass famines and resource wars that will make the 20th century look like a game of Animal Crossing.
I'm sure you think it is very wise of you to say that this is totally normal and we might as well shrug it all off, but I'm still pretty pissed that this was forced onto my children and there's still time to at least publicly execute some of the faggots who ensured this would happen.

There are plenty that make this plea. But how could we return there?
Only the anarchist strain of sociopolitical ideals has the right idea. You aren’t allowed to rationalize it with capitalism or statism.
>>21324768
An excellent start

>>21324525

>>21324525
is that menstrual blood on her face?

>>21324525
The Bible.

>>21324525

The Conquest of Bread

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread

>>21324525
Linkola writes about creating a global eco-fascist state in order to stabilize our relationship to the environment. It does make you wonder if his proposed solution could work, considering that corporations and 99% of people alive today don't make decisions based on an ecological perspective, and never will unless forced/incentivized to do so by some kind of governing body. I think it really just highlights the fact that a total paradigm shift would need to occur in order to return us to this "state of harmony," and I sincerely doubt this is possible without either a massive shock to the system or a very large amount of time for philosophy and politics to catch up. Even if we reach a point soon where all of humanity can agree that our relationship to nature is severely out of balance, I think you would still find that most people would be unwilling to change so long as they are comfortable. Of course ecofascism would have plenty of its own problems but I think it's an interesting idea as a counter to global capitalism run amok.

>>21326602
I've never read Linkola, but isn't one of the primary concerns of a globalist government with technology the possibility that a change in leadership or cultural structure could again damage nature? A beneficent global industrial governing body can do a lot more harm to nature a lot faster than a small feudal government without industrial tech.

>>21325096
the world as such free from human control has value that is not in any way represented in the market logic of human civilization. "wilderness" is not a space of nonproduction but rather a zone excluded from our calculations

>>21326625
the environmental catastrophes we are currently facing are the unintended side-effects of our technology, much of which was created to deal with the problems caused by previous technologies. why would you assume that we'll be able to invent an effect-free tech in the future?

john zerzan

>>21324525
I wrote a piece on that recently

https://adolfstalin.substack.com/p/a-fragment-on-the-passage-of-civilization

>>21326602
How do you explain "green" politics being astroturfed out the other end?

>>21324760
4chan

>>21324760
Philip Rieff, Leo Strauss, Alisdair MacIntyre...

>>21325746
Differentiating humanity from nature is our collective egoism at play. What you're describing has a word, environment. Man is inherently inseparable from nature

>>21325746
>Humans are destroying the planet.
Humans defined what nature is, what a planet is and everything on it. We've defined the very meaning of destruction, it's all just words. Nature is not real, there's only cause and effect. We'll continue to survive in whatever environment we create and nihilists will always be present. Lowest form of thought.

>>21324525
Does anyone explain the loss in average level of culture of the humans after about half the 20th century (or before)?

>>21325746
the extinction events OP was referring to are natural though
comet impacts, supervolcanos etc.
how are we different from so many other species in history that dominated biodiversity and fucked up the natural balance?
Even now we have to manually kill thousands of animals or trees/plants etc. because invasive species can literally overturn habitats to the point of them becoming so unstable most of the biodiversity in them disappears in a matter of years

I do agree with your whole premise though. But famines etc are actually the natural thing, us taking such extreme measures to counteract famines, disease etc is what's unnatural. Obviously we should continue to do so though but we were talking from an appeal to morality through nature argument

>>21324760
E. Michael Jones

>>21327245
r-r-r-retard. We are not real. Nature will continue to survive long after we've killed ourself.

>>21324525
Bible

>>21324525
Henry George

>>21325096
It's immoral and unnatural because it's bad. It's unnatural for a human to cease thinking and acting ways that are self harming.

>>21327665
you can't even define 'bad' so this is a terrible argument
also many ways in which we have harmed nature have been HUGELY beneficial to humanity

>>21324760
baudrillard

>>21324558
>Funny thing is that a great point in the movie you posted is that men and industrialization are part of nature.
That was not the point of the movie. Pseuds like you need to stfu.

>>21328305
Who?

>>21324525
>Or is industry really just going to roll over it all?
Not industry but psychopaths in charge of it, and those that follow them. Everyone plays a part.
>>21324558
Dehumanising part of your kin is pretty uniquely human. I guess that comes with free choice on some higher level. On the lower level, it's just what kind of behaviour gets rewarded with more ownership and material wealth.

>>21325096
>especially preservation ones
Well, given the choice, which do you pick - preservation of nature (whatever that may mean now) or industrialisation? Not that the two are incompatible, but once you pick, you get dragged along a specific path that is going to favour one of those.
>The one law of nature is might makes right.
Not really. I'm more inclined to believe what Joseph Campbell said. Simple fact of life is that life feeds on life.

>>21329477
>Not really. I'm more inclined to believe what Joseph Campbell said. Simple fact of life is that life feeds on life.
Fair enough. There's also plenty of symbiotic relations in nature. Not to mention that life is also what makes life possible. Life feeds on life but life also gives life.
That said might makes right is still a pretty universal law. Competition might be the better word.

>>21325096
>hurr durr nature adapts
You’re a retard

>>21324760
Thoreau complained about the proles reading garbage in the 1850s

>>21324760
unironically marx
>all that is solid melts into air

>>21330001
Well, what if natural competition is replaced by a system that significantly alters the rules?
I note that it could be argued that the mightiest ones created such system so that they could stay on top and not have to try hard and compete for what they have any more than is necessary. However, if this system prevails for a long enough time, how does the rule apply still?

I do agree that life also gives life.