Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Nature's Embrace?

Re: Nature's Embrace?

aimsta — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:00:30 -0000

liberty, i'm with you.

i have a question for anyone willing to answer: do any of you hate nature? trees? i just met this guy who is a self-proclaimed nature hater. he hates trees, unless they are boxed in and prevented from growing "wild all over the place".

i just don't get it, can't relate one iota. maybe a fellow nature hater can explain to me in more depth.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

thebizofknowledge — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:58:03 -0000

I stumbled upon this site as I was in the process of doing some online research. It seemed a radical reaction to Cynthia E's simple statement that there is beauty in nature and that we don't unplug long enough to even be aware of it.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

bbartlog — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:49:37 -0000

Oddly, google suggest that 'idiocy of country life' is attributable to Marx rather than Johnson. But I'll take your word for it. I somehow thought Dostoeyevsky. Though the same basic idea probably occured to all of them in any case...

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Robert Speirs — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:37:58 -0000

The same Samuel Johnson who said, "He who is tired of London is tired of life" complained about the "perfect idiocy of country life" There is no tree as beautiful as a skyscraper. It occurred to me that only man-made things are non-fractal. There can be some strikingly beautiful fractal effects, but they are random, accidental, not expressive of anyone's will or effort. Man's creations reflect perfectly his thoughts and plans, for good or ill. To me, the divide between the "natural" and the man-made is deep and clear. And no primitive man would hesitate for a second before changing places with one of us.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

ben — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:49:23 -0000

Trumpit

Some rich irony in your comment. One, it is precisely because you live in a society with unbridled freedom that you have the right to live elsewhere. Use it. Two, because everyone enjoys that freedom, your comment about LA being unliveable is plainly wrong. 20 million people choose to live there, including you.

In a society without freedom your comment might have merit. Maybe.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

bbartlog — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:49:09 -0000

I need to check the historical context a little more, but I believe Macaulay was exaggerating the benightedness of the Highlanders largely in an attempt to justify, post hoc, the brutality of the English Clearances. So while his writing works rhetorically I wouldn't put a lot of stock in its literal description of conditions.

In any case (while I too disagree with her closing paragraph) I think she makes a good point overall. There is something hypnotic and deadening about being online all the time, and it's nice to get out every so often.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Timothy — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:30:34 -0000

Man, I sure wish we were in the pre-industrial age. I mean, a life-expectancy at birth of 38ish years sounds WONDEROUS!

http://www.infoplease.com/i...

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Trumpit — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:55:44 -0000

The murder rate is exploding; the traffic congestion is abominable; the air is unbreathable; rents are too high; junk food oozes with artificial, toxic ingredients; people all hate each other; etc., etc.

The quality of life in L.A., where I live, is going into the toilet, Don. I've lived here all my life, but now I'll have to seek out a happier, healther place to live out my humble life. And it's all your fault, Don! Your belief in unbridled human freedom and capitalistic greed is squelching and suffocating my simple life. This is now an ugly city with ugly people, I'm trapped and I want out!

Don idealizes the contaminated, unliveble, alienated, industrial world just as that lady from Vermont idealizes the beauty and tranquility of nature. She finally woke up to smell the roses. Spending ones life in front of TV/computer screen playing video games is sick, Swimmy. Now I think I'll go for a walk in the cement jungle and think pleasant thoughts. My only freedom resides in my head because the real, unnatural, human-destroyed world is to bleak to face. I might as well be held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Wake up and smell the roses, Don.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Jenna — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:21:24 -0000

I don't over-romanticize either side; I love parts of the natural world *and* parts of the industrial world. My option is a balance between the two: a humanistic naturalism.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

ben — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:12:58 -0000

Pegasus

Where DDT has been used it has sharply reduced malaria, where it has not been used malaria persists, and when it is used but then stopped malaria returns. Don't believe for one second this is a myth.

We can argue all day about this, and I am happy to engage in that conversation, but I think the more fundamental concern is the reasoning that went into the decision. Environmentalists, knowing full well the effectiveness of DDT, and with the most scant evidence on environmental effects, knowingly sacrificed many lives for their cause. None of them their own.

Even if the evidence on environmental effects stood up, the scandle would hardly be any less. Untold suffering inflicted on the world's poor in exchange for the welfare of several bird species.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Russell Nelson — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:04:47 -0000

Josh: true about the hunters, however they required 100 acres per person, while the agriculturalist only requires 1 acre per person. And ... hunters are dependent upon game. That's fine until you experience a population crash, at which point you, the dominant predator, would experience a population crash as well.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Wild Pegasus — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:19:42 -0000

loikll,

Interestingly enough, the hunter-gatherer humans who preceded the farmers did much less work than the farmers, or us, for that matter.

ben,

The DDT ban is, to a large extent, a myth.

- Josh

Re: Nature's Embrace?

loikll — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:56:24 -0000

***The sky was blazing with stars, and hundreds of fireflies danced above the lawn and through the meadow. I opened the door and walked outside in a trance.***

Poor Cynthia doesn't realize that her very own ancestors didn't go out into the woods at night. THEY weren't stupid -- That was a good way to be eaten by a wolves.

Besides they were in the habit of collapsing into slumber quite early after breaking their backs for 14 hours desperately trying to farm enough food to stave off starvation for another season. (When they weren't busy dying during childbirth and whatnot.)

I'm thinking her ancestors would be far more appreciative of "electronic bonds" than she is.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

ben — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:50:50 -0000

Adam

True, nothing about DDT was mentioned. But it's only a short step from believing people would be better off if they appreciated nature to writing rules that force that on them.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Jim — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:12:09 -0000

I thought it was supposed to be satire when it first aired, but I guess some actually believe Mr. Burns when on 'The Simpon's' he told Lisa "Mother nature started the fight for survival and now she just wants to quit because she's losing"

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Adam — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 06:28:50 -0000

Ben: I agree, but she didn't say anything about DDT. Would we condemn someone who calls for people to share what they have with others on the grounds that communism has killed 100 million people? Seems rather far-fetched.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

failingeconomist — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:40:10 -0000

What? You mean Scotland’s not like that any more?

Re: Nature's Embrace?

ben — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:27:44 -0000

I believe the strong reaction is justified in view of the tremendous damage that the romanticisation of nature has produced and likely will continue to produce. Last I heard the decision to ban DDT, a decision grounded squarely in such romanticism and in defiance of evidence, had killed 30 million people and counting. Only Stalin and Mao have more blood on their hands than Rachel Carson and her ilk. Judging by effect, if not by intention, environmental worshippers are among humankind's great evildoers. Don's rebuke is therefore understated.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Adam — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:57:29 -0000

On that note, I think I'll go for a walk. :)

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Adam — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:56:57 -0000

"Mother Nature doesn't warmly and lovingly embrace human beings; she strangles us in a death grip."

Normally I agree with just about everything posted here, but this sentence really reminds me of a line in the Simpsons when Mr. Burns says, "Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun."

I agree that over-romanticizing nature is silly and outright ignorant. Nature's a dangerous place and we're better off living as we do today than as hunter-gatherers. But for crying out, "Mother Nature strangles us in a death grip?" You're making her sound like our mortal enemy who needs to be eliminated.

I hardly think that saying it's a shame that we don't turn off the computer and get outside more often is insane. I don't think she's calling for a return to mud huts in fields. You're swatting a bug with an elephant gun here.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Swimmy — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:02:38 -0000

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this woman enjoying nature, or wanting others to enjoy nature. That's just a personal preference that she'd like to share. So long as she can also accept that I hate nature and would rather sit in an air-conditioned room while playing videogames and talking to my friends on the internet, we can all get along.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

DirtCrashr — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:03:44 -0000

Go to the light, Cynthia...

Re: Nature's Embrace?

John Pertz — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:16:58 -0000

Or Cynthia can simply step outside from time to time. I dont really see any need to revert to the pre industrial age simply because I am not getting enough "fresh" air.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Constant — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:32:45 -0000

In Cynthia Emerlye's defense, everything apart from her last paragraph is defensible. Provided that we hold on to our "electronic bonds", we can enjoy nature without becoming victim to it.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

dearieme — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:59:34 -0000

It can be cyclical. In late neolithic Orkney, the good people of Skara Brae had stone houses with drains.