Ever long for simpler times?

[Plissken]

That's actually a pretty beautiful way of looking at things, Malik. From now on, I will try to speak more accurately, and instead of "un-natural" I will use the phrase, "Things which are likely to make the planet uninhabitable for humanity before we get off of it."

[matrixman]

I'm thinking that maybe I'm being unduly harsh or too cynical in response to Lord Foul's question. Nothing wrong with wishing for a simpler life. I certainly wish I could live without having to worry about the rent. I wish I could live in a world without terrorists or holy wars or nuclear weapons (and if all three ever come together, I hope I won't be around to witness the horror of it). But LF seems to be talking more about the materialism evidently clogging our modern lives. I'll concede that electronic toys aren't necessary for human happiness...but you're not taking my DVD system away!

LF mentioned the idyllic era of the Land after TPTP (before the Sunbane); that would probably be a nice time to live in. I'm sure it would also be a more democratic kind of culture than that of imperial Rome. But maybe it's not a fair comparison: it's easy to imagine utopia in a fantasy world, not so in the real world.

[High Lord Tolkien]

How natural is car exhaust pollution?

Quite natural. Organic material naturally burns, producing natural exhaust.

How natural is the smoke from a forest fire? How natural is the exhaust from a volcano?

The CO2 released through the burning of fossil fuels used to be in the atmosphere to begin with--before plants extracted it. Where do you think they got it? Conservation of matter and energy, remember.

People think that if something is the product of man's tinkering, then it isn't natural. They think this because they don't think man is natural (how else could they think it?). To think that we--and our works--are not part of nature is EXACTLY what I meant by "alienation from the world." We alienate ourselves from reality by conceptually removing and separating ourselves from "nature." But this is impossible. You can't extract us from nature, nor can you take nature out of us.

Also, the idea that we are somehow taking the world "out of balance" assumes (incorrectly) that the world was in balance to begin with. It is not, nor has it ever been, "in balance." It is in a constant state of flux, a state of chaotic forces achieving temporary equilibriums. The continents are constantly moving, storms are constantly whirling, volcanos are constantly erupting, and global climate is constantly changing. Deserts appear where rain forests once stood. Ice covers areas that used to be lush with life. There is no balance. I've never heard anyone who can explain what this means. What is "in balance?" What are the scales measuring?

The universe is running down, heading to the great Heat Death required by the laws of thermodynamics. This cannot be staved off by any measure of conservation. It's entropy. Everything is dying. Why do you think this is Eden? It's not. The ONLY hope for the universe is for intelligent beings to evolve enough to find a loophole.

We are the greatest achievement of the universe, we sentient, intelligence bits of it--not these lumps of rock floating around the stars. And yet people want to think we're not worthy of it? We are the unnatural invaders whose very deeds stand outside of it? I say the universe is not worthy of us. We are the universe coming to life, and yet everywhere we look around, it's all dying. What a place for sentience.

Well said Malik, well said.

[Plissken]

I'm thinking that maybe I'm being unduly harsh or too cynical in response to Lord Foul's question. Nothing wrong with wishing for a simpler life. I certainly wish I could live without having to worry about the rent. I wish I could live in a world without terrorists or holy wars or nuclear weapons (and if all three ever come together, I hope I won't be around to witness the horror of it). But LF seems to be talking more about the materialism evidently clogging our modern lives. I'll concede that electronic toys aren't necessary for human happiness...but you're not taking my DVD system away!

LF mentioned the idyllic era of the Land after TPTP (before the Sunbane); that would probably be a nice time to live in. I'm sure it would also be a more democratic kind of culture than that of imperial Rome. But maybe it's not a fair comparison: it's easy to imagine utopia in a fantasy world, not so in the real world.

It's a hard question in the real world, though. The answers given so far have been largely flippant, but think about it: On the one hand, we've got many problems and distractions and not enough time, etc.

On the other, we've got the fact that cars and tv and information technology have made society more democratic and less dangerous, while at the same time our health and longevity have improved - not just because of medical tech, but because of ease of information flow and this entire infrastructure we've built around ourselves.

The things that have both been decried and held up in this discussion bear a more thorough examination: Think about having to eat the same three or four things that grow in the area you live in for your entire life. Then think about everything that exists so that you don't have to make that sacrifice, and everything else those things affect, and the other things that are required to produce and maintain those things... All so that folks in Pheonix can have cheese on their pizza.

[bossk]

The thing I think is hilarious these days is people who convince themselves that 4-wheeling is a manly pursuit. I mean, ooh golly wow, you got in an expensive car and drove where there are no roads. You must have testicles the size of bowling balls. I am truly impressed.

[safetyjedi]

Back to the subject of the thread.

I have often thought of living in the old west or even the times of King Arthur, especially to know if there really was a King Arthur, but have the knowledge I have today, especially where medicine is concerned. I would also like to visit fuedal Japan during the time of Musashi Miyamoto. Alas, all we can do is dream.

Of course you all do realize that none of the people in those time wore deodorant!

[ur-bane]

Ok, Malik. Perhaps my use of words threw a curve at you. But reading the post, certainly you understood what I was talking about?

Certainly of all I wrote more than "nature intended" stuck out at you?

Just in case, here's a better way to say it:

I want to see my area before anything was done by non-indigenous humans to change the look of the area, including, but not limited to cobbled or paved roads, concrete and steel structures, wooden structures meant for habitation, fencing of any type, automobiles, airplanes flying overhead, power lines, neighborhoods, trains, boats, jetskis, docks, piers, brown haze over the island, power plants, sewer systems, light posts, traffic signals, etc.

I would say "before non-indigenous human interference," but certainly you would present an argument based on "interference."

It is a whimsical question, therefore I supply a whimsical (or "flippant" as Plissken thinks) response.

[Avatar]

Good posts, and nothing wrong with a little whimsy now and then. That said, I do think Malik makes a point worth making, regardless of whether or not it can be considered willful misinterpretation.

Certainly, I'm pretty much opposed to the use of the word "unnatural" myself, but I too can't consider toxic waste etc. as something that was "meant" to be part of the world. (And maybe we're entering a whole new thing here, with the word "meant." Perhaps I should redefine it as "something that would have been part of the world if man had not developed far enough to actively participate in the wanton destruction of his habitat"?



--A

[ur-bane]

...I do think Malik makes a point worth making, regardless of whether or not it can be considered willful misinterpretation.

Sure, it is a point worth making, although I don't agree entirely with his assessment. But I think this particular thread is not the place to make that point.

Why single out the forested one as more natural?

A rebuttal to the nitpicking, if I may.
I am not singling out the forested one as more natural. That is simply the condition and time during which I wish to see the area.

The land on which Long Island sits was once high up in the Appalachian mountain chain. The Island itself was created by two glaciers, and consists of "debris" that was pushed ahead of the glaciers, and left behind when they receded. That was about 60,000 years ago. (I don't remember the time between the glaciers, but IIRC it was about 10,000 years.)

For some reason, I can easily visualize what I think the area looked like at that time, but also for reasons unknown, I cannot visualize what I think the area looked like after it became forested, but before it was developed. Therefore I choose that time 1000 years ago for my wish.
It's not any more or less natural, but it is more appealing to me.

[matrixman]

Malik's point of view seems ruthless to me. The universe "is not worthy of us"? That's a rather stunning statement. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I must've entirely missed your point. We seem to misunderstand a lot of things around here, as you often like to point out.

The things that have both been decried and held up in this discussion bear a more thorough examination: Think about having to eat the same three or four things that grow in the area you live in for your entire life. Then think about everything that exists so that you don't have to make that sacrifice, and everything else those things affect, and the other things that are required to produce and maintain those things... All so that folks in Pheonix can have cheese on their pizza.

Heh, good point, Plissken.

[ur-bane]

Yes, Plissken has made a good point if you consider staying in the simpler times.
I was responding to a temporary visit instead of a permanent residence.