how do I into post-natural environmentalism

[Anonymous No.12469325]

Not really well read enough to understand people like Donna Haraway( Good lord that alphabet soup ) or Timothy Morton.

Not into greenpeace, hippie, kumbaya-justice style environmental thought, either

Suggestions for a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.12469336]

Dialectic Ecology > Damascene Ecology > Dark Ecology > Deep Ecology > Ecology

[Anonymous No.12469351]

What is post-natural environmentalism?

[Anonymous No.12469437]

>environmentalism IS NOT ecology.
I recommend Ecology and Evolution (Science). Best to start with the taxa, you need to be familiar with the biosphere for ecology. Learn the concepts, and continue to method and theory. Most importantly spend time in the field. if you really want to read into Ecology, simple as; study Google, go into the crossref hole.
I never got into the kind of 'ecology' you are posting about, it smells bad to me. CS Peirce is my favorite philosopher for ecology and especially evolution.

[Anonymous No.12469521]

I studied ecology in school and I've never heard of dark ecology

[Anonymous No.12469914]

>>12469336
>Deep Ecology
This should have been a no-brainer for me, as I dabbled in reading Merchant and Zerzan a whlie ago.

I couldn't get past the whole intrinsic value of biodiversity stuff and the anti-capitalist bent of most of that. Shit is traditionalist identitarian tier of pipe-dreaming.

Maybe if you could also suggest literature that is in favor of, say, responsible geoengineering, the dispelling of environmental romanticism, but also is progressive towards the stewardship of ecology?

>>12469437
I posed as a layman but this is just demeaning. Be gone feral stemfag

[Anonymous No.12469990]

>>12469325

[Anonymous No.12470101]

[Anonymous No.12470113]

[Anonymous No.12470117]

[Anonymous No.12470127]

[Anonymous No.12470136]

[Anonymous No.12470189]

Fucking astounding that /lit presents itself as the bastion of thought but seldom has a novel critique or leaning on a subject as contemporary environmentalist thought but not a single fucking week goes by without appeals to eco-fascism or primitivism.

Pathetic LARPers please commit.

[Anonymous No.12470262]

>>12469914
>I posed as a layman but this is just demeaning. Be gone feral stemfag
No it's not. Why would you ignore the science of ecology and just co-opt the word into your braindead boring shit?
>Maybe if you could also suggest literature that is in favor of, say, responsible geoengineering, the dispelling of environmental romanticism, but also is progressive towards the stewardship of ecology?
Yeah it's called Game Management by Aldo Leopold you fucking mongoloid.
>can't understand the intrinsic value of biodiversity
Then you're the brainlet here. If you don't care about biodiversity then you don't care about life on Earth. Read a book by somebody involved in the actual field of ecology or zoology and if you don't want to find another edgy political ideology, stop trying to taint this field with your mental diarrhea. Seriously get your anthropomorphic shit out.

[Anonymous No.12470409]

>>12470262
>ignoring the science of ecology
wh....what? I'm TELLING you you're rhetoric is belittling by not only flamboyantly calling attention to a distinction between sociology and science, but you then go on to suggest I need to understand the FUNDAMENTALS of ecology and never did you ONCE even contribute anything in the direction of the theme at hand.

>If you don't care about biodiversity then you don't care about life on Earth
>You're the brainlet.

Nice bait.

>anthropomorphic shit
When /sci sends their people, they're not sending their best. compost yourself shitter.

[Anonymous No.12470475]

>>12470409
Because if you don't understand the science of ecology then all your shit is retarded hippy shit. Your ideology will never gain traction and is mental masturbation for do-nothings.
>never once did you contribute to the discussion
lol I told you to read Leopold, the guy who wrote the literal book on land ethics. You obvious do need to brush up on ecology because you don't understand biodiversity. Look into ecosystem services. Keep in mind that your "deep" ecology falls right down into the aesthetics area. Your grammar is also dogshit and you formatting is garbage. But go ahead and call me a /sci/ boogeyman, your ideology was dead in the womb.

[Anonymous No.12470561]

>>12469325
I can't entirely tell what it is your looking for, but in my environmental ethics class we read Wilderness and the American Mind by Roderick Nash. It's about the evolution of the ideas and mores surrounding "wilderness" as they relate to western (and more specifically American) society.

Might serve as a good intro to environmental thought. After that we read Imposing Wilderness by Roderick Neumann which kind of went into the issues of putting those thoughts onto other cultures (national parks in Africa).

Other than that we read a lot of Leopold, and this one by R Guha on social ecology you might like?

[Anonymous No.12470593]

>>12470475
When did I advocate for ideology you absolute chimp?

Biodiversity is fucked! There is no evidence stating it is going to stabilize given our current socioeconomic climate.

Having known this I would prefer a line of reasoning that doesn't prioritize aspects of ecology as sacred. At this point I'm more interested in resilience, engineering solutions, and adaptation. Which is where my interest in a morally grey environmentalist thought arises from, not that you can discern left from right from up from down.

I mean you literally edited my own words to fit your ad homs. I said I couldn't get past biodiversity, not that I couldn't understand it. Please do one for the planet and kill your family then yourself.

[Anonymous No.12470643]

>>12470475
>Keep in mind that your "deep" ecology falls right down into the aesthetics area.

oh wait...Are you under the impression that I've invented Deep Ecology?

This man is beyond any help. Take him away.

[Anonymous No.12470646]

>>12470593
>resilience, engineering solutions, and adaptation
Right, so get cracking on the fundamentals of ecology, literally everything you want is addressed there. Read Game Management by Aldo Leopold.

[Anonymous No.12470655]

>>12470643
Yeah I think you're a Scandinavian on a mountain. I'm sure you're a very committed individual who'll contribute a lot with your ironic twitter memes so keep chug a luggin

[Anonymous No.12470657]

>>12470593
Your OP said you were a layman who wasn't ready to understand these concepts. This guy offers you a foundation. You get mad at him for it.

That's like saying you want to be a lawyer, but you don't want to learn how laws work because these ones are dumb.

There's benefit in learning how and why these things work, even if it's not how they'll work in the future. Knowing what's going wrong can at least minimize things from going wrong.

[Anonymous No.12470679]

>>12470561
I just got this book pictured. So far it's pretty compelling and very readable. I would recommend as well. Thanks for the recommendation.

Wilderness as a proxy for critical existential environmental discussion is something I can very easily understand, but I think when it comes to its intersection with other, more pressing forces such as climate change it doesn't read much more than 2-dimensional.

[Anonymous No.12470733]

>>12470657
Flimsy analogy but maybe so. I assumed there would be more integrity in the average answer.

More like:
>I'd like to learn about ethno-culinary influence across the Himalayas
>You need to learn about nutrition first because without this foundation your entire basis of observation is no better than a Dominos Pizza deliver boy.

>>12470646
You cheeky fuck. I'll look into it.

>>12470655
He had to google Arne Naess. It's so obvious he compensated in his response oh FUCK my sides.

[Anonymous No.12470815]

>>12470733
>social ecologist
>hasn't read Leopold
>probably doesn't understand statistics
>more into politics than nature
>makes food analogies
Makes too much sense.

[Anonymous No.12470909]

>>12470815
>'More into politics than nature
>Believes in a thing called Nature that isn't inherently political.
Take your heathen ass elsewhere, anon. You stink

>>12470815
>>12470655
>>12470646
>>12470475
>>12470262
>>12469437

What are the stats that say you're the samefag still trying to redeem your shit logic

[Anonymous No.12470928]

>>12470909
>nature is inherently political
Absolutely disgusting. Btw I wasn't >>12469437 he gave you pretty sound unpretentious advice and you arrogantly dismissed him. I'd tell you to eat shit but you already do that without help.

[Anonymous No.12470981]

>>12470928

That's reality you naive prick. Where have you been for human history? I'm not here to debate facts, you're dismissed.

[Anonymous No.12471056]

>>12470981
There's that arrogance again, you sure will sway the hearts and minds.

[Anonymous No.12471409]

[Anonymous No.12471485]

THE STORY GOES LIKE THIS

[Anonymous No.12471501]

>>12469914
>I couldn't get past the whole intrinsic value of biodiversity stuff and the anti-capitalist bent of most of that.
The correctness of both of those positions becomes apparent when you learn the science of ecology. Especially if you are philosphically and sentimentally inclined (overall, being sentimental is a good thing). Which is why I recommend that you learn the science of ecology. Dealing with the Natural Sciences will quickly cure you of this 'post-nature' nonsense, which seems to be laughably niave nominalism using a colloquial meaning of term 'nature', which is cringeworthy or absurd if taken to mean the proper nomenclatural meaning of the term. I have a radical ecological philosophy of my own, I refuse to share it with a philistine like you, who has no interest in playing the real game.

[Anonymous No.12472186]

>>12471501
>post-natural =/= post-nature

I never once used this phrasing. I was appealing more so to the naturalistic fallacy than I was suggesting anything else, actually. That's why I stated post-natural environmentalism, otherwise it would read as Post-Nature Nature. Nice try fuckwit.

Well, oh wise one, we can continue to be revisionists of readily available documentation, on the condition you promise to bestow me such rich and vast stores of knowledge and insight. Please, I'd love for you to go on and spew from your gaping consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12472248]

[Anonymous No.12472510]

[Anonymous No.12472518]

>>12469325

[Anonymous No.12473853]

>>12472518
>Nationalism
>'deep' ecology
Uhhhhh no

[Anonymous No.12473919]

>>12473853
I think those were supposed to be recommendations for people with right-leaning ideologies. So anti-hippy dippy shit. They were recommendations and you don't have to read them.

Stop being so disagreeable.

[Anonymous No.12474093]

>>12470189
Just read Uncle Ted and skip the hippies. Simple.

[Anonymous No.12474117]

>>12472518
The brother of Ernst Junger also had an anti-industrialist book.

>>12473853
Hunny, can you go back to the chapo subreddit?

[Anonymous No.12474122]

>>12472518
not OP, but thanks bro, looks like a good reading list

[Anonymous No.12474123]

>>12473853
you don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous No.12474203]

>>12473853
Damn Op everyone interested in any form of ecology thinks you're a faggot

[Anonymous No.12474262]

>>12472186
you're the cunt from the kant thread the other day, aren't you
god you're a sad cunt

[Anonymous No.12474308]

>>12472186
>I never once used this phrasing. I was appealing more so to the naturalistic fallacy than I was suggesting anything else, actually. That's why I stated post-natural environmentalism, otherwise it would read as Post-Nature Nature. Nice try fuckwit.
Sure I'll give you that one, it was intentional pedantry on my part. But why aren't you interested in studying ecology? It's well worth it and I guarantee it will greatly inform your 'environmentalism'.
On a side note I have always hated the term, "environmentalism", it falls in line with schismatic presuppositions about human life on earth. Ecology is not about our environment, it's about Life at home. It is not our environment on the line, it's our Life. maybe this is the sort of thing the post-natural environmentalism you mentioned is touching on, it certainly seems to be in line with deep ecology. I never got into deep ecology, I am not impressed with it from afar, it dies seem to be in line with my own beliefs. The great thing about studying ecology is you can deal with these sorts of questions on your own terms. I feel pretty comfortable (as it's sufficiently vague) in calling myself a sort of biosemiotic animist. Scientific literacy is extremely important for this topic, you are doing everyone a disservice by neglecting to study ecology.
>>12473919
I'm not a big fan of the hippy dippy shit either, despite my affinities with it. Nationalism just isn't compatible with an ecological worldview imo. From my understanding of how ecosystems are organized, and how the processes doing the organizing happen, nationalism appears to be antithetical to an ecological politics. At a shallow level, the nativist rhetoric of nationalism seems to have an affinity with ecology, to people who don't really get ecology or nationalism. The only hope is some sort of living politics.
>>12474117
>>12474123
I don't really have any strong political affiliations beyond sentiment, I'm a pragmatist, I'm open to what you have to say, go ahead. As it stands it appears that the only people who have this opinion here are smooth brain dilletante ted posters, who never ever post anything scientifically meaningful about ecology or show any interest in learning. What I have seen officially from people with that opinion is equally vapid.

[Anonymous No.12474436]

>>12474308
are you biosemiotics lad?

[Anonymous No.12474521]

>>12474308
What really pisses me off is that the people that right wingers meme about throwing out of helicopters are, appart from indigenous groups, the only signifigant group of people out there blockading logging roads and doing grassroots ecological stewardship and advocacy. Every year right wing nationalists murder hundreds of environmentalist leaders around the world, and nationalist political leaders only touch on environmental advocacy in farcical power-ploys. The rise of nationalism around the world has been an ecological disaster, the nationalists are the ones legitimizing the building of; roads and dams, clear cutting and converting natural landscapes into argicultural land, not to mention their deep-set relationship to oil and commercial fisheries, and their obligate symbiosis with finance and all the horrors that come with it. look at Brazil and west Papua for example. Nationalism is an enlightenment farce to legitimize the political-economy's illegitimate authority over the living world. It doesn't pan out like it's rhetoric promises.

[Anonymous No.12474647]

>>12473853
Border control is unironically the first step to accomplishing meaningful environmental change

Man is the greatest threat to the environment, it should be logical to want to control the movement of man into areas where the environment is at risk

[Anonymous No.12474697]

>>12474308
>>12474436
i am positive you are. not really relevant to the thread, just curious as you will be more likely able to help me than others.
do you know anyone doing any *serious* researching/theorizing about the urbam ecology? i don't mean just studying urban environments as yet one other place you find flora and fauna; i mean conceiving and approaching the city as both ecosystem and organism. in the same way that biotic organisms are capable of complex and non-conscious communication (down to the cellular and intra-cellular level), i am interrsted in the possibilty of the sub-structures of cities possessing this same capacity, to communicate with each other 'behind the backs' of the hominids that compose and occpuy them.
i think the distinction between 'urban' and 'natural' environments is, though a useful abstraction in many contexts, not valid in others, and ultimately limiting to our understanding of how *all* ecosystems might work.

[Anonymous No.12474715]

>>12474647
What are you talking about? Border control for one has a very negative physical effect on the regional living landscape, from population dynamics to ecohydrological/ soil processes the infrastructure it takes to "secure borders" is itself a large scale ecological disaster. It does nothing about the problem, it just destroys the ability for it to work itself out through natural dispersal and migatory processes. Want a real solution? Ending industry subsides and laws that prevent people from producing their own food and sustaining their life by living in their own landscape. Doing away with the policies that grant all authority over agricultural production, infastructure, and basically every facet of living to centralized finnancle power would be infinitely more beneficial. what is nationalist policy doing? The exact opposite. Nationalism is a method of bamboozling people into letting the global financial-state rape the life out of this planet, using arguments from assine premises just like that one you just made, though usually focusing on econmics as those in power do not like to acknowledge environmentalism unless they absolutely must.

[Anonymous No.12474717]

>>12469325
j. j. gibson -> kent bloomer and charles moore -> mark davis -> rob nixon

i wrote it this way to imply an order but in fact it's arbitrary

[Anonymous No.12474732]

>>12474717
some other good works-- Alien Ocean by Helmreich and fiction like Sindra's Animal's People

[Anonymous No.12474746]

>>12469325
The Impeachment of Man by Savitri Devi is really the book that started it all, unfortunately suppressed because of her politics.

[Anonymous No.12474774]

>>12474647

Do you have any idea how current border policies and infrastructures affect the ecology of the American south? If you did, you wouldn't be so confident in contriving clearly false statements to peddle your Reich Wing talking points.

>>12474308

I actually am really interested in pursuing a career working in matters of ecology by going to school for environmental science/ chem and hope to work in some kind of mycoremediation and land restoration. Not sure how realistic the former is, given the current political landscape that is chewing up public lands like none other coupled with a dying field of expertise. Not sure if I will even find a fit in this era.

My main interest in this thread was more so to seek framing that could help to assist navigating in a rapidly shifting climate, hence I shied away from dense, material-laden text-booking and showed a greater interest in theory. Pictured is a good example of writing concerns itself with addressing some of our conceptions of Nature and how they actually do more to damage our ethics.

I can also admit have an extremely elementary grasp on the actual workings of ecology, relatively speaking, but I just want to make it clear it is not because I have no interest in it, just have I yet to experience applied sciences.

>>12474262
You've got the wrong cunt m8, sorry

[Anonymous No.12474933]

>>12474697
That's a topic I have mostly neglected, I think that viewing cities as novel ecosystems is useful, not simply novel assemblegess but the novel ecosystem processes that come along with ubiquitous market control over things like resource fluxes and niche partitioning. So it's not only novel communities but novel processes governing the organization of communities. There is a major infulence of culture in here too, which of course is also dominated by the market. For example, take those dastardly lawns suburbanites love so much, here cultural aesthetics, markets, local hetrogenity in wealth/property values in human communities limit the avalible niche space for for plant communities. Take this paper for that.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C37&q=messy+ecosystems+orderly+frames&oq=messy+ecosy#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DxTQ6C_sBlscJ


I haven't done all that much reading in urban ecology but think about it quite often. I'm sure general readings in ecology are the best way to go, in biosemiotics Almo Farina, K kill, and Wendy Wheeler come to mind. I'm not sure why but Francisco Varela also comes to mind. I have only very recently got into cataloguing what I read and am thus limited in being able to recall specific literature to help you out.
> i am interrsted in the possibilty of the sub-structures of cities possessing this same capacity, to communicate with each other 'behind the backs' of the hominids that compose and occpuy them.
Yup, definitely pay attention to scale and process. Search for niche/resource partioning in urban environments, urban ecotones would be interesting, check out the work surrounding Richard Hobbs and Novel Ecosystems. The fields of ecological economics, environmental aesthetics and urban planning should be useful.

[Anonymous No.12475296]

>>12474774
Look I was being a dick recommending Game Management. If you really want to learn ecology read The Fundamentals of Ecology by Odum. Yes, it's a scientific textbook, but trying to avoid big material laden things is just putting off the inevitable. They'll build your knowledge of the field more thoroughly than reading advanced philosophy. It's a bit like trying to do differential equations without knowing algebra.
>mycoremediation and land restoration
Dude I live in Texas. This state has almost all privately owned and ecologists still get work done. The federal government is trying to fuck us over by shrinking public lands and their retarded revision of the migratory bird act but that's no reason to become discouraged over the field. Plenty of work gets done here and land owners really will listen to you if you aren't a dickish autist towards them. What college are you thinking about going to?

[Anonymous No.12475576]

>>12475296

I definitely see what you're suggesting. I personally have a tendency to get lost in the sauce when I have a textbook sitting in front of me. I picked up another book by Merchant just yesterday to help contextualize our present conflicts. I understand form follows function, but in my case, it has helped to familiarize me with tenants of environmental science while also introducing me to how it tends to realistically play out on the geopolitical stage.

As for education, I don't have much idea outside of a couple years in the EnvSci pipeline at a local community college in Colorado.

I flaked out of school 3 years ago while pursuing sustainable urban design & planning after becoming demoralized by bureaucracy and idealism. Spent the past 2 doing environmental labor on wildland fire crews and trail maintenance. Realized there wasn't much space for me to get in a more fitting position without a degree, and here I am.

https://dark-mountain.net/

^^Another recommended seasonal publication that has done some really decent work contributing to this conversation.

[Anonymous No.12475585]

>>12475576

[Anonymous No.12475700]

>>12475576
>As for education, I don't have much idea outside of a couple years in the EnvSci pipeline at a local community college in Colorado.
Well shit you lucked out. Try and get into Colorado State for their Wildlife Biology program. You'll be able to find a lot of good researchers there that'll help you find some good direction
>plus you already have field experience
Profs will love this and help you get scholarships. They've also got a good grad school. Getting masters will let you become a leader of projects and without one it's hard to get hired with just a bachelor's.

[Anonymous No.12475791]

>>12469325
Is there any background reading I should complete before I dive into ecology or environmentalism aside from sciences?

[Anonymous No.12476046]

>>12475791

Personally I would suggest understanding fundamentals of sociology while reading about environmental narratives.

Anything that can summarize the change in economic structure throughout history such as agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, global economy, etc. It helps.

[Anonymous No.12476153]

>>12475700
This. I had an env sci degree from a community college and they ended up accepting me as a junior at Cornell. Of course NY has equivalency rules, but you could probably jump in with some credits and focus on classes you want to take.

[Anonymous No.12476210]

should I read Ishmael

[Anonymous No.12476458]

>>12476153
This is good to know. I'm that biosemiotics dilletante and I'm pretty much in the exact same position as the other guy appart from maybe being a little bit more learned in my interests, and alot more of a fuck up(only 16 credit hours of higher education) still don't know what I am going to do in college. I think I'm going to move, get an associate's in math or something such as that which will be of more practical use to me. Of course I want to be doing biology(also philosophy) and to be around biologists, I also want to be accepted into a good research university with paid tuition. I have no idea what to do, waste away I reckon.

[Anonymous No.12476523]

>>12476458
What's the closest big research uni with a wildlife program? The three main ones I know about are Texas A&M, Colorado State, and Oregon State. I know A&M has an ecology track in their philosophy department (and a really good new stats department if your into that).

[Anonymous No.12476626]

>>12470189
I think it is quite revealing that the fucking unabomber is more accessible than academic works. Doesn't really matter what goes on in the academy because for all their millions of words none of them have the same reach or power as Kaczynski. A populist solution to the problems around ecology is never going to happen so academics should never appeal to the mob, which would just be a dumbed down thing at best. But its really just a circle jerk and being more self-aware of that fact and less protective of their university walls and who has access to what paper etc etc would lead to the broader dissemination of ideas. Of course as Ted has said, the problem with the university man is he likes to play at being world changer but would never risk anything to actually do it. Cloistered academic life is just too comfy

[Anonymous No.12477132]

>>12470101
>Zero books-disregarded

[Anonymous No.12477237]

>>12476523
Washington University in Saint Louis. I'm way out in the Ozarks, It's not a stretch that I could bullshit my way to getting accepted. I couldn't pay for it, and I have a strong aversion about going into debt. I'm also bad at meeting people so I want to go somewhere where I already have friends, for my health. The place where I am at is experiencing urbanization and many of my loved places are dead or dying due to road building or real estate development, I'm going insane here. I want to move to my friends in California or Washington to make money while I wait for instate tuition. Hopefully I'll be moving to the Bay area or the pudget sound area pretty soon. I also need to be with the ocean, for my health. I'm really worried about moving to a city again, urban landscapes fuck me up pretty bad. If I can find a place to freeload for a while I could make alot of money on the west coast. Also seriously considering world travel but I don't want to leave my dog.

[Anonymous No.12477311]

>>12477237
i'm from seattle, just moved away last year. cost of living in the whole region is, i'm sure you've heard, out of control. there is a lot of new, unsustainable development, and a lot of real estate in foreign hands. whole situation is fucked. UW is a top-notch research university, however, especially for someone with your interests. if you can get into a grad program there, make nice with a few professors, and land some post-doc work, i think you will be very happy.

[Anonymous No.12477434]

>>12477311
Do you think someone who went to evergreen could get into grad school at UW? If I used evergreen's underutilized research opportunities ofc. I have friends in Olympia but I'm very skeptical about going to a meme college. I wouldn't want to move to Seattle until grad school if possible.

[Anonymous No.12477457]

>>12477434
i am, incidentally, an evergreen grad. my ex-girlfriend was also an evergreen grad, and an ex-con, and she sailed into their law school. i, too, had fair prospects before i left the city.
evergreen has a *superb* science program, considering the cost, though the school is going through some serious budgeting and administration issues. bret weinstein was kind of a cunt, but he was a great teacher. same with his wife. i don't know who they've been replaced with. i'd say get in and out while you can. otherwise, look elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.12477552]

>>12477457
I like evergreen and lived in West Oly for a while, most of my friends their went or still go to evergreen. I was there right when everything went down after Weinstein. I was at the Glen just a few months ago. I stayed at a friend's dorm the first time I went to Olympia 4 or so years ago. I really like the place. you know what, I'm going to go to evergreen. I think I'll be happy doing that. The only reason I had not to go was grad school prospects. That's a silly reason, I'll do fine.

[Anonymous No.12477828]

>>12469325
AMA

[Anonymous No.12477832]

Anything else you'd like to know?

[Anonymous No.12477861]

>>12474308
Yeah, nationalism is kind of incompatible as it implies a nation-state and modernity. Tribalism in general isn't, though. It's a good thing to build a culture concerned with looking after the environment it finds itself in and defending their ways (and thereby the environment).

An example that relates to this is how tribal Pagan Germanics intentionally left many forests completely untouched by humans and lived sustainably within the ones they did inhabit, despite wood being the key material for everything they made outside of clothing. When they were Christianised they moved into those untouched forests, to live and harvest.

[Anonymous No.12477873]

>>12474308
>nationalism isn't compatible with ecology
>implying that nativist or tribal beliefs are in no way due to biological inclination

I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or to cry for you.

[Anonymous No.12477878]

>>12473853
>>12477873

[Anonymous No.12477884]

Kochanski mentions a few interesting things from a non-academic perspective, someone who taught outdoor survival skills all his life.
When you consider the photographer who takes snapshots of nature there is a whole process of chemicals involved which requires the absolute destruction of nature in another place, and it is all unseen. And in terms of our daily relation with nature it is interesting that we cannot truly experience it, because if every hiker wandered throughout the famous places and camped where he liked, lit campfires in his chosen place, then the landscape would be so deeply scarred it may never recover. This has developed into the culture of the ultralight thru-hiker and Leave No Trace - which is a telling, almost religious, aspect of our relations with nature. Something like rites which absolve us of our impact upon nature. Meanwhile the destruction for all these ultralight and low-impact products destroy huge areas of nature, and will eventually feed back into local systems.
When the average hiker goes into nature he is following a strict path, he is ruled by a technicalised relation, and so domesticated he only witnesses nature from the point of the passive horizon. And so it is fitting that seniors and globohomo pilgrims filter off of buses and stand crowded around a fence which subtly, and with banal ugliness, keeps them safe from nature's excess. And now they even turn their backs to nature and imprint images of it as the backdrop to their own immortality within the internet.

[Anonymous No.12477917]

>>12477884
There is an interesting scene in Free Solo, I think, where he finally ascends the rock and he hears cheering, as if it is for him. But these people don't even notice him, or have any clue what he has just done, they are simply enjoying the crowds of nature.
Also required viewing:
https://youtu.be/UO_uK33aQY8
Even Nietzche could never imagine the depths of our pain.

[Anonymous No.12477930]

>>12477873
Is this poster a joke? Pitbull thing aside

[Anonymous No.12477954]

>Primitivism is the first and last pill.
>You camp, party, joke around, go hunting, sharpen your knife while the women take turns cooking meals; and after a few weeks, once the mice begin to take over, you pack up and set up camp elsewhere. It does not seem redundant or monotonous because there are countless beautiful ridges, valleys, and bays whose beauty can never be matched by the settlement itself. It is this beauty which allows the jokes to never grow tiresome.
>Meanwhile, the dregs of human settlement are grown over by the trampled nature you left behind. The waves of sphagnum give way as the mice retreat back into the forest, and the first growth makes a pathway for deer, hares, and some future generation to return to.
>This is the beginning and the end, and what we are all trying to return to. Civilisation is nothing but the death of this, its rotten material crystallising and falling away from nature towards the heavens.

[Anonymous No.12477962]

>>12477930
Probably not, these Roman larpers unironically despise Roman war dogs.
Imperial Cuck-cult. Imagine being a fascist and a cat person, or worse, a golden retriever NatSoc.

[Anonymous No.12477983]

>>12477962
I was thinking more in terms of deportation to solve overpopulation, as though ecosystems just terminate at national borders, so deporting people fixes everything

[Anonymous No.12478252]

>>12477983
Yes, fascists themselves do not understand fascism. Fukushima especially makes it clear that there are no national solutions to an ecological crisis which is mostly invisible.

[Anonymous No.12478654]

>>12477962
Nigbulls are not Roman war dogs, but feral mongrels bred by Angl*s for blood sports.

[Anonymous No.12478681]

>>12478654
You need to go back, magafag.

[Anonymous No.12480217]

One thing I noticed is that a lot of self proclaimed environmentalists really only care for the pretty things. They hold things such as the redwoods in a sort of divine reverence (and rightfully so) but they do not extend this reverence to the fields of scrub which are just as natural and deserving of the same care. Are there any good books or essays dealing with this sort of dis-ingenuousness in environmentalism?

>>12474308
>>12474521
>>12474715
While I agree that any modern right wing ecology is bullshit because they are only using it as a means of going at their true goals which haven't changed. Sustainability is suddenly a problem because they can use it as a cudgel against immigrants, and climate change is suddenly no longer a liberal hoax because they get to use it to talk about the evils of China.

That being said, do you think there is any place for national feeling in ecology? I myself work and study it both because I want to ensure the survival of my homeland which is incredibly ecologically fragile and because I truly believe in the sanctity of nature. I also have been working to adjust my philosophy towards ecology and environmentalism to fit with what would work in my own cultural and biological/geographical context. Do you think there is still room for these to coexist or do you think one will eventually corrupt the other?