Comments on: Closer to Nature

By: jleeger

jleeger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:55:27 +0000

Thanks Tony.

By: tonyisnt

tonyisnt — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:26:48 +0000

As far as packaging simplicity, since at this point you’ve basically asked about it three times with little response: It can (probably) be done (kind of), and I think it will definitely be worth the effort. I don’t know exactly how it can be done, but a lot of authors and activists are getting a good start on it I think. Explaining to people that the simple life isn’t what they’ve been told their whole lives—”nasty, brutish, and short”—is a great place to start. Questioning complexity is a start. Making all of these things common topics is the next step, and the steps after that we’ll find when we get there.

By: jleeger

jleeger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:44:52 +0000

I agree with you guys. The “human beings are natural” thing is no joke. Everyone uses that tautology to explain away anything they don’t want to confront.

However, the “nature” we’ve created (which is called “culture”) is destroying Nature – as being the system upon which our “nature/culture” is based. I’ll use a capital “N” here to distinguish between Nature (the basis for all life), and nature (“human nature,” or “culture”).

I agree with you Jimmy, that we’re already very close to Nature. I think people do need to realize how close they are too it, and how much their everyday life is effecting Nature.

In that sense, though, we also are not very close to Nature at all. How many people are actually comfortable going into nature and really being in it? I know a lot of people who feel fine hiking into the wilderness with thick-soled boots and heavy camping gear, and very very few who feel comfortable going on that same hike with minimalist footwear a tarp and a knife.

What I’m trying to get at is an idea of simplification – of returning to life based on Nature, rather than life based on nature/culture.

As a trainer, I run into people all the time who want to lose weight, gain mass, get 6 pack abs, etc. But where do those desires come from?

I think they come from our American culture. Not from within the individual themselves.

How do you sell something like “nature” – in the sense of simplification, of reduction to essentials…you know what I’m saying here? How do you create a product out of “simplicity” – or is it even possible/fruitful to try?

I guess, like you said, Tony, I’m just trying to find a way that works…

By: jimmynorth

jimmynorth — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:53:12 +0000

we’ve forgotten already that we are very close to nature by our nature (sorry for tautology). Human beings consider thamselves to be kings of nature though they do not understand that they are its killers. Of course, we are a part of nature but if so, we should behave ourselves also as being its part!

By: tonyisnt

tonyisnt — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:31:00 +0000

That’s an important question to ask, but unfortunately, not an easy one to answer. Is there one easy way? No, probably not. I’m OK with letting it rip itself to shreds, but I don’t think that’s the preferable route. It seems pretty unpleasant.

Reconnecting with nature is certainly a good option, but my reason for commenting was basically, well … I don’t know. As soon as you say we should “reconnect with nature” people go “humans are natural, a part of nature,” and then it turns into a big mess. It’s a good way to go, but it brings a lot of baggage with it.

The important thing is finding a way that works, or as many authors would say, Tom Brown certainly among them, rediscover a way that works.

By: jleeger

jleeger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:12:06 +0000

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the comment. I agree with you 100%. But is there a way to package simplicity? Is there a way to wrap the antidote to “civilization” as we know it in a hard candy shell, so that everyone will eat it?

Or do we just let it rip itself to shreds?

By: tonyisnt

tonyisnt — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:16:55 +0000

The sucky thing is (as I’ve found), you’ll never get everyone to agree on the “nature” topic. But the good news, I guess you could say, is that this doesn’t necessarily matter. A lot of people get sucked down into these semantics-masquerading-as-philosophy arguments and tend to overlook the point altogether: Civilization is systematically destroying everything in its path. If something doesn’t serve increased production, it’s out; it’ll either be labeled “primitive,” “unnecessary,” “inefficient,” “outdated,” or a number of other things, and be cast aside in favor of growth. It must, therefore, be stopped; this is the important aspect of what Tom Brown said. Of course by doing so we’ll end up reconnecting with nature, or vise versa, but don’t get bogged down in the definitions.