Playgrounds, The New Yorker, and Total Crap

Posted on June 30, 2010 by Josh

An article in the most recent New Yorker entitled “State of Play,” gives a brief outline of the history of playgrounds in New York City, along with an overview of some of the playgrounds coming soon to a borough near you.

And it’s total crap.

Here’s the original Seward Park Playground:

And here’s David Rockwell’s upcoming Imagination Playground:

Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of big blocks, and movable pieces. But the idea that imagination is contingent on those things is a perversion of thought, a disservice to imagination, and a marketing pitch.

What happened to playgrounds like the one the Bar-barians use? They’ve all disappeared in favor of molded-plastic “safe-houses.”

Don’t tell me it doesn’t take imagination to come up with some of those moves…

What about the outdoors? What about the playground of the woods? When I was a kid, it was my favorite place to play, hands down:

If the argument for these new-fangled playgrounds is that they’re more conducive to healthy imaginations, because they offer “movable objects,” and “diverse variegated shapes,” how do they stack up (pardon the pun) against nature – where there are sticks, stones, branches, leaves, dirt, water…and [gasp] other living creatures!!!

Not only that, but what about the fact that being in nature reduces stress hormones, improves mood, and increases the amount of physical activity you do?

It’s also nice and cool in the woods on a hot summer day. Ever notice that?

Oh oh! I’ve got another one! How about the fact that nature isn’t made of plastic? It’s totally biodegradable people! It’s GREEN! Get with the green revolution!

I’m making a serious effort to stay as positive as possible here.

Instead of planting some trees, grasses, and native plants, New York City has hired some architects to create safe playgrounds that will look like hell in 30 years after the sun beats down on them and degrades their plastic parts…or those parts get stolen or vandalized.

What are we afraid of? That, if we don’t “produce” something, it has no value? Or that, if we stop “producing” “things” we won’t be able to “make money?”

Don’t you see the fallacy in that? You’re just creating value anyway. I mean, actively making it up! Money is make-believe. We agree on the value of it. We agree that one thing is worth another. We agree to “follow the rules” of this game.

Now that’s what I call using your imagination!

However, we seem to be stuck in the game. We’ve mistaken the game for reality.

The reality is that the oil spill in the Gulf comes from this money-game we’ve decided to play.

The reality is that the plastic playgrounds of the future are made out of petroleum products.

The reality is that we have a choice. We can choose to plant park-grounds made of things that recycle the carbon we keep pumping out. We can choose to make places that are soft as grass…or we can choose to make places that are soft as “pebbled rubber.”

You choose.

Just don’t blame your choice on [your lack of] Imagination.

Here’s a good history of playgrounds in New York City.

Frank Forencich Asks – Where’s My Habitat?

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Josh

Frank Forencich of Exuberant Animal points out an issue with the way we approach ourselves in the world in a recent blog post.

His complaint is that we (as individuals, and culturally) separate ourselves from our habitats to such a degree that we’ve lost touch with reality.

I couldn’t agree more.

However, I wonder how to go about changing this. And in this post, I ask for your feedback.

Below is my response to Frank’s blog post. Please let me know your thoughts on how to do this – how to get people reconnected with their habitat, with the land that gives them life, in a visceral way.

The oil spill in the Gulf is at least in part a result of our society’s (societies’) addictive use of oil…we can’t separate the drillers from the people for whom they are drilling.

People are so distracted from anything real (habitat)…what will bring them back to awareness? How does one engender awareness?

Science is a process of thought that relies on separating things. It takes dynamic systems and “analyzes” them – breaks them down into “constituent parts” – which is a fallacy. Once you’ve killed and dissected a dog, where is the dog? It isn’t there anymore…a bunch of “parts” are.

We extend this tendency (or habit, whatever it is) into philosophical, religious, economic, and political thinking…

That is, it always comes down to – “This piece is wrong/bad, we must fix it.”

Thus, from the get-go, we’re off on the wrong foot. If we interfered, and that’s what “broke” it, how can we “fix” it by interfering again?

Better to stop doing.

The Best Exercise Includes a Dose of Nature

Posted on March 31, 2010 by Josh

The British Ecological Society’s blog posted about a recent research article titled “What Is The Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise For Improving Mental Health?”

The article is a meta-analysis (that is, it synthesizes research from many previous research studies about the topic), and sums up its results with the following statement:

“This study confirms that the environment provides an important health service.”

And I have only two questions…

1. REALLY?!!! and,

2. AND?!!!

First, this information is anything but new. Anyone who has every gone hiking, who has ever taken a vacation in the mountains, or in the woods, or who has ever played in a creek behind their house, knows firsthand the difference between “exercising” (moving) outdoors in a natural environment versus doing the same or similar activity indoors or in a “built” (human-made) environment.

I’m talking here, not only your own first-hand experience, but also about the incredible amount of scientific research that shows the benefits of moving in a natural environment. The paper quoted above used a lot of that research to make its own (redundant) point!

I’ve pointed out at least one piece of this literature in previous posts (here, here, and here). So…it’s not even new to this blog!!!

However, even with that knowledge, and even with the rapidly mounting evidence, and my (and others’) incessant blog postings on the subject, it continues to be an “issue.” That is, people continue to choose Wii, and to choose justifying their Wii time, to actually going out into the woods and taking a hike.

I want to say one thing before I finish this post up with a final point, and that is this -People seem to have a tendency to feel better once they talk about something. That is, they feel little compulsion to do anything about a problem once it’s been aired, once it’s out in the open. In fact, on a few occasions I’ve seen this behavior up close and in person. Let me give one example:

There was a family that I spent a lot of time with. Everyone was overweight in that family, and they were aware of it. In fact, they would almost always say things like “We’re all fat in this family.” Or “We need to lose weight.” Or “We need to throw out all of that junk food in the pantry, and just have a bowl of fruit out for snacks.”

One time, I actually offered to help with the clearing of the pantry. I said “Ok, that’s a good idea! Let’s do that now!” Well, the younger children of the household weren’t home, and the adults decided that it would be too traumatic to just throw everything out all of a sudden. So we didn’t clear out the pantry.

There is a reason we are not connecting to nature. That we are not making this connection. That we don’t go out into the woods and take a hike. There is a reason you don’t do it. What is that reason?

My final point is this – The above question seems a good question for science to ask. Why isn’t science asking that question?

Here’s my answer(s) to that question:

1. It’s not the job of science to do anything about it. It’s the job of science to ask questions and get answers. But science is not a field of activisim. It is a field of questioning and answering. That’s all. Expecting action based on gathered knowledge is a bad habit (one which I’m trying to get rid of).

2. Science doesn’t want to ask a question that invalidates itself. I think part of the answer, of why we are not connecting to nature, in spite of overwhelming evidence that we should, has to do with the fact that our culture is largely based in a scientific approach to things. That is, nature and science (at least, the way we’re accustomed to doing science) are largely contradictory. So, science might find its own relativism, and find its own value being questioned, were it to ask “Why aren’t we connecting to nature.”

A couple of possible answers…what do you think?!

Anti-Establishment Thought – A Response

Posted on February 23, 2010 by Josh

Guy McPherson’s most recent blog post over at Nature Bats Last garnered a lengthy response from me that I’d like to share and expand upon here.

Guy reviews Tom Blees’ book “Prescription for the Planet.“ While I haven’t read the book (and that’s partly the point), Guy cites some issues he has with it. Namely, that Blees’ recommendations don’t call for any radical (root) change in the way things are done, but merely use alternative forms of the same (destructive) system.

Guy says:

Ultimately, Blees’ plan boils down to two “solutions,” both of them extremely suspect. First, he claims we can we can ramp up production of renewable energy systems and also fourth-generation nuclear reactors to keep the power on. Indeed, Blees claims our lives depend on electricity. As such, he dismisses the first two million years of the human experience. If our lives depend on electricity, it’s because we’ve abandoned a viable, durable set of living arrangements in exchange for endless opportunities to destroy the living planet. Second, Blees promotes the notion that boron-powered automobiles will keep us on the highways. And he thinks that’d be a good thing. After all, boron seems to be essentially limitless on this world. Just as crude oil seemed, not so long ago.

Indeed, Guy.

The rest of this post is my response, with some editing.

we need power

Welcome to the Machine

It’s not that I disagree with Guy’s sentiments, but it’s worth noting that he and I wrote our opinions (and you are currently reading them) on a piece of equipment that is an integral part of the “omnicidal technology” that we decry.

The roots of the culture of omnicide are not located in any single place. They’re distributed through our culture. This is true of any culture. Culture, as accepted, shared values, is always self-policing. Individuals within the culture accept it, and see anything that is different from the culture as “foreign,” and therefore also “dangerous,” or “threatening.” They then seek to ostracize or destroy that foreign element – whether or not that makes sense.

The greatest example I can think of is the American Civil War. Brother fighting brother, father against son. It didn’t matter whether or not they were family, or that they loved one another (previously, at least). What mattered was that they had become “the enemy” to one another, through a process of enculturation. The Northerner accepted the cultural values of the North. The Southerner, those of the South.

Beneath that lay the dominant drive of life – at any and all costs to expand, to become more (people call it a lust or desire for “power,” though that description seems flaccid to me).

The two forces combine. The Southern father is now a foreigner. A threat to the Northern son’s expansion – and not just his expansion, but his entire culture’s expansion – everything he stands for or represents…a force greater than he himself. A fight to the death is the only option, it seems.

brother, can you spare a bullet?

Wherefore Art Thou, Culture?

The thing is, the roots, the seeds of the “omnicidal technology,” must already have existed in our culture from the beginning, in order to be able to sprout into their current form. I don’t think they were “planted” along the way. I think they were always present, like anything, just needing ideal conditions for their growth.

What happened? How did “hard work” turn into “entitlement?” How did the earth-consciousness of the small farmer turn into the money-consciousness of modern agribusiness?

Some values were (are) allowed to be stressed (or impressed), while others were (are) allowed to be suppressed. How did those allowances occur, or how were those allowances coerced?

This, I think, is the appropriate starting-point. Starting from a discussion of right/wrong tacitly concedes the ground that supports the undesirable state. Once conceded, it is the “dominant system.”

Now (still) the dominant system, any energy put into it, is used by it (not singularly, but in a distributed fashion) to further its cause.

The “antagonist” must fight against an “agon.” There must be a hero for the villain to fight.

I think these are clues to the way out. Any argument that relies on something other – especially any argument that relies on reference to the current (read, dominant) paradigm – will only be used by the current paradigm.

What do you think?

Fat Kids, Their Parents, Nature Deficit, and the Future

Posted on December 24, 2009 by Josh

So many articles on overweight/out-of-shape children popped up on my Google alerts yesterday that I have to post about it. Not that I don’t want to, you know.

The kids in Sacramento are terribly unfit, and getting less fit by the year. The Sacramento Bee article linked to above does a good job of showing how most “physical fitness” data ignores socioeconomic data. It’s essential that we start putting these things together, to be able to see the bigger picture.

You see, poor kids are typically less fit than kids from more wealthy families.

One of the schools mentioned also had to reduce the presence of their “physical fitness specialist” from five days per week, to two days per week. I’m sure that kind of thing is happening all over the country. “PE” isn’t valued in our culture.

Great Britain is experiencing the same symptoms. The article says, though, tat the biggest cause is a lack of regular physical activity by the children. Sounds good. Again, though, it’s only part of the argument.

This recent article in Scientific American points out how being in nature or in a natural setting not only reduces stress markers, but also creates value change in the people involved.

Out in the Wild, people naturally become more “other-focused,” and less “self-focused.” Further, our motivational drive switches from an extrinsic drive, to a more intrinsic drive.

In all of these articles, though, where are the parents?

I mean, why aren’t fingers being pointed? And pointed where they should be?

Socioeconomic status notwithstanding, parents play a huge role in getting their kids active, and into nature.

I suppose what I’m saying is this – we always look for the “cause” in the immediate present. But those things are just symptoms.

What happened in the parents’ generation that has led them to care less about physical activity and nature? Or at least, to be less involved in those things, or have their kids less involved?

What happened back then? Treat the cause, not the symptom…

There is no “mind”

Posted on December 14, 2009 by Josh

I just got about fifty pages into the book “The Joy of Living, Unlocking the Secret & Science of Happiness,” by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche – and had to put it down.

Now, I don’t mean to “put it down,” but I have some serious misgivings about this book. Misgivings that won’t allow me to continue to read it.

For one thing, I question the persistent use of Buddhism, and the persistent presence of Tibetan Buddhists, in motivational literature.

I question that even more when the literature “merges Eastern and Western views.”

First, Buddhism, at best, is a religion. Before you read the rest of this, you should read James Carse’s most recent (and excellent) blog entry (and probably his book, too).

In short – in case you don’t have time to do all of that preliminary reading right now – Carse draws a distinction between Finite Games and Infinite Games. Finite Games are games that are played to win. There is a Finite end to them. Infinite Games are games that are played to keep playing. There is no end to those games.

Now, Carse would rather make the distinction between “belief” (as infinite game) and “religion” (as finite game). Though I’d say it’s rather different.

A religion is an “infinite game.” A religion is about Mystery. It is not necessarily “organized” or “indoctrinated.” It is a thought, a pattern, a method, a Way, that the religious person carries with them. Through it, they try to decode the Mystery of What-Is.

An ideology (or what Carse would say is religion) is a finite game. It is the indoctrination of a religion, a religious belief. An ideology plays to win. It pits itself over and against The Other, whatever that Other may be – another religion, another ideology, etc.

My first problem is this – at best, science is religion. It is a search for the meaning of Mystery. It is the quest to continue searching. There is no “end” to true science. Just as there is no “end” to true religion. It is a tool for constantly experiencing What-Is.

At worst, science and religion are ideology. In those instances, as I’ve mentioned, they are pit against other beliefs. They create the distinction of Self/Other. They tear apart, break down, set brother against brother.

So, to be clear, the book needs to say what it is talking about. Is it talking about the religions of Buddhism and science, or the ideologies of Buddhism and science.

Secondly, while I do feel upset about the injustices the Tibetan people have suffered, I disagree with the use of Tibetan Buddhist monks, or Tibetan Buddhism, to promote the cause of Tibet against China.

This, again, is creating an ideology of Buddhism.

Whatever, right?

Now that that’s said, I’ll tell you why I had to put the book down.

There is no mind.

Around page 28 (or the beginning of Chapter 2), the author begins to talk about the mind, and the origin of mind. Then he talks about the brain, and the fact that the mind cannot be found within the brain. Rather, he says, the mind is a process, not a static thing. It cannot be pinpointed because it is constantly moving.

While I agree with the idea of mind-as-process, I think the distinction between mind, brain, and, necessarily, body, points to the Self/Other dialectic in this book. It points to the place where the author is misguided.

There is no “mind.”

As I mentioned in previous posts, there is no “separation” of the body from the external environment. The “external environment” is the human “external organ.” Without it – as without any “internal organ” – the human animal dies.

Similarly, the human animal changes in response to changes in its external organ. If the external organ is healthy, the animal is healthy. If the external organ is sick, the animal is sick. Just as with the internal organs.

Where is the separation?

Finally, find the clear dividing point, where one part of the brain effectively stops, and “the body” begins, and I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize in Godliness.

There is no “clear separation” between the “brain” and “body.” They are the same thing. Without a part of your “body,” the part of the “brain” that is associated with that part of the “body” withers and dies.

We could almost say that they were one and the same.

Scientists have found cerebrospinal fluid in collagen tubules throughout the body. That is – fluid that bathes your spinal cord and brain flows through your entire body.

This should not be surprising.

There is no “dividing line” between your body and itself.

Similarly, there is no “dividing line” between your body and anything else.

The dividing lines that we draw are drawn for the sake of convenience. Those lines, again, are tools to help us to understand the Mystery, and to work with it effectively.

But they don’t really exist.

In the same way, if you were to look at a map of the countryside, just an aerial photograph, you might say – “Oh look, a river, a mountain, and a forest.” But you would all say that they are part of the terrain. And if you were to cut out any one of those things from the, let’s say square, map, you would say “This map is incomplete.”

Were we to draw state and county lines on the map, you wouldn’t say they were “real.” They’re effectively real, because we’ve agreed to those terms. That’s part of the infinite game – the rules of the game we’ve agreed to play.

In the terrain itself, you might walk over that river, through the woods, to grandmother’s house (sound familiar?). But you wouldn’t say “well, where is the wilderness here?” would you? It’s all around. You wouldn’t say “the wilderness is only in the river,” or “only in the forest.”

Looking for “mind” in the body, or even “in the mind” is like looking for the wilderness in the river. It isn’t there. It’s in the crunch of the leaves under your feet, and the sound of the squirrel’s alarm-call as you approach. It’s in the sound of birds’ wings overhead, that look like kites etched against the blue sky. And it’s the blue sky, and the wind whistling through tree branches. It’s in the stink of the rotten tree you climbed over and the squirming bodies of the insects you exposed when your foot went through that soft trunk. It’s in your hands. It’s in you. It is you, too.

Mind is the same. Keep looking for it, Huck Finn. I have a map for you right here. You and the other kids can help.

I am glad I read the first 50 pages of this book. The book was a great help to me, actually. It helped me to realize that this distinction runs so deeply, and to see the Self/Other dialectic at work in a new way.

But I won’t recommend it.

Your External Organ

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Josh

Ok dirty birds, before you get any ideas, let me tell you what “external organ” I’m talking about:

The environment.

Yes, I said it! But I don’t mean “the environment,” as in what you try to save by driving a Prius, or by recycling. Well, I sort of do, but I think the word has been cheapened by those things a bit.

The environment is everything external to you. Yes, it is the “natural” world – trees, earth, dirt, grass, birds, animals, etc. It is also your house, the street you live on, your friends neighbors and enemies, your children, your parents, the airplane flying over your house.

Again, “the environment” is everything external to your body.

The “internal organs” of your body are these:

Adrenals — Appendix — Bladder — Brain — Eyes — Gall bladder — Heart — Intestines — Kidney — Liver — Lungs — Esophagus — Ovaries — Pancreas — Parathyroids — Pituitary — Prostate — Spleen — Stomach — Testicles — Thymus — Thyroid — Uterus — Veins

The internal organs of the body are “collection of tissues joined in structural unit to serve a common function.” More importantly, they are the functional units of your body. They work in harmony to allow you to live. Without any one of them, you die.

Your “external organ” is the collective “thing” outside of you, that similarly supports your life. Without any part of your external organ – without plants and animals for food, or plants and sunlight and water for air, or dirt, or the people around you, or the birds, or anything else – you die.

The "Carbon Cycle" - Your External Organ Breathes

Now consider your actions in relation to this external organ of your body. For the people who are so detached from their own body that they cannot feel it or relate to it, this won’t mean much – but it might be a path back to the body. It might be easier for them to first understand their relationship to their external organ.

Another Cycle of Your External Organ

The Myth of “Production”

Posted on November 13, 2009 by Josh

There are a few myths our culture upholds that are fundamental, and damaging. One is the myth of “production.” That is, that “production” is the key to “success” (our cultural definition of success).

Where does the myth come from? Seems like a combination of sources. First, our Puritan heritage stressed work-as-suffering as a (religiously) necessary part of life. Self-denial, even in the Stoic sense, was a popular attitude in that culture.

I’d say that carries us through the 18th Century. In the 19th, the Industrial Revolution took hold. Then, that Puritan ethic drove a new idea of “work.” I think it was here that production took hold as king. Make more, faster…do more work in less time. More production. People realized that if they did this, they’d make more money. Money takes over.

In the 20th Century we had a bunch of wars. Production served us well (seemingly), because we could respond quickly to the demands of the world at that time (need tanks, planes, bombs? We can do it, fast!).

Now, in the 21st Century, we’re still trying to push this production. But there’s no direction to it. Any production is equally meaningful. What is that? Postmodernism?

Anyway, it has led to things like “clean” energy, “green” products, etc. Which, on the surface, seem like really good ideas. Many modern pundits for the environmental movement want to see more production in “green” areas.

The only problem with that, is that those methods all are still PRODUCTION, which BY DEFINITION takes energy and creates waste.

Creating the types of waste we create is antithetical to any truly “green” initiative.

What’s the solution? STOP producing so much. Stop consuming so much. And when you do produce/consume, stay close to nature…

FitBusters 2 – LSD – “Long Slow Distance” Cardio

Posted on November 12, 2009 by Josh

Here it is, the second installment in the FitBusters series.

In this episode, Charlie and I discuss common misconceptions about cardiovascular exercise, prevalent in the training community at large today.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zySyo2jQs4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

I suppose the crux is this – the human body is capable of doing ANYTHING IT CAN DO.

And, it will adapt, given that the dose isn’t fatal or toxic, and given sufficient time for recovery, to anything.

Further, and more specifically to this video, a few researchers recently have been spreading the idea around that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus because they ran long distances.

There is nothing wrong with, or physiologically damaging in long, slow, distance cardio. I recently started doing it myself, wearing the Vibram FiveFinger shoes, in the Marin Headlands (trail running), and will be “competing” in the NorthFace Endurance Challenge in that same area next month.

It’s a 50k (30mile) race, and I’ve never been an endurance runner. In fact, I just started about two months ago.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that a diverse workout regimen, involving weightlifting, high intensity, low intensity, and play leads to a well-rounded organism that can tolerate new challenges well.

As far as running 20 miles every weekend…start where you are now. But it’s not such a bad idea to find a trail within driving distance of your home, to get up early on a Saturday morning and get out of town, to get back into nature and walk or lightly jog through it, getting fresh air, beautiful views, and stress-release all at the same time.

I think you should try it. At least once.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

True human nature

Posted on October 16, 2009 by Josh

All of this culture-speak recently has brought me to a realization about the nature of human beings. (check out this recent article on animal morality)

It is our nature to consume. It is our nature to consume everything available. It is our nature to fight. It is our nature to lie.

All of these things are our nature. All are natural. All animals do the things we do. There is no separation between man and other animals, except in the ways we choose to express that common nature.

The question then is not “what is human nature?” Human nature is animal nature. Both are ultimately Nature’s nature. We are not separte from Nature, except through artificial constructs. As we’re starting (slowly) to learn, we are directly connected to the cycle of Nature. There is no separation there. Pollute, and ye shall be polluted.

The question is – “In what direction, to what end, do we exercise that nature?”

Any “law” points, automatically, to what is otherwise natural for us to do. Laws are a social agreement, to force us to moderate ourselves, for the sake of society, for the sake of civilization.

For instance, let’s consider the 10 Commandments from the Christian Bible:
1. Have no other gods before Me
2. Worship no false idols/images
3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath
[Work 6 days, rest 1] – this one is “hidden” in there
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Do not commit murder
7. Do not commit adultery
8. Do not steal
9. Do not bear false witness
10. Do not covet anything belonging to your neighbor.

It is our nature to do all of the things we “shan’t” according to the 10 Commandments. Otherwise we wouldn’t need “laws” prohibiting us from doing them. We’d naturally not do them.

What’s the point?

Well, for one, remember that human beings are animals. We’re not far removed at all from “the wilde beastes” (read Chaucer for true insight into human nature) that haunt the dark wood. If you want proof, send me an email and I’ll send you the video file a friend just sent me showing Taliban members beheading “infidels” with what looks like a butcher knife.

The second point is this – when we become mindless, we descend into savagery. And I don’t mean “savagery” as “poverty” or “third-world status.” I mean we descend into a state where “third-world” even makes sense. We descend into a realm of subjugation, of putting people into work camps and gas chambers…of putting animals into subjugation.

We’ve embraced the method of the mind so much, that we can’t turn back. We have to continue on this path. We’ve effectively destroyed any culture that didn’t rely on the mind-at-the-expense-of-harmony.

Recognize your nature and befriend it. Don’t shun, deny, or ignore it.

We do this all the time. It results in feelings of guilt or shame. “I had sex with my neighbor’s wife” [not me, this is figurative!]. You are ashamed, you are guilty. But why did you do it? Because you couldn’t help yourself? Or because you tried to deny that you could do such a thing, and ignored the impulse in you until it was too late?

I see the same tendency in people fighting to become “fit.” They come to the gym and work out once a week, or twice. Then go home and chow down on whatever is in front of them. “I couldn’t help it. I couldn’t stop myself.”

Yet you could stop yourself from working out every day? No. I disagree. You couldn’t admit that it is your nature to want to eat everything. To want to consume all around you. To want to expand, to live. And so, when the plate was put before you, you had already relinquished control through denial.

“I don’t want to eat everything I see…I just can’t help myself.”

The path of least resistance is also a natural law.

When you accept your nature, then it becomes your choice what law you live by, and how. Then you can truly choose.