1. What does it do to the natural world to interact with it only from
the perspective of morality and progress (capital)? What would nature be
without religion and civilization?
2. Can we act in any other way than in striving, as a species, to be
masters over all? How can we redefine success (mainstream idea of
success) when it doesn't involve the abuse of resources, both human
and environmental? Who gets to determine what's abusive and where it's
acceptable to live?
3. Much of the beauty I see in the natural world stems from its
harshness. The earth provides sustenance, in every way, for survival,
but it poses constant and relentless threats to survival as well. Does
that mean it's our enemy? Do we destroy it because it poses threats to
our existence even though we can't exist without it? We want to create
our own user-friendly world, but how far do we go?
4. The natural world is not moral. It is harsh and unforgiving, but
all life is deeply connected to it. Humans replace natural world with
civilization, which is meant to protect us from the world's savage
dangers.
No comments:
Post a Comment