Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Nature is merely a definition


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 March 2010 - 03:39 PM

I've just watched a documentary where Slavoj Zizek also had his say about ecology.

Now I don't completely follow a certain argument of his, and maybe someone could clarify?

He says: "danger of global warming and everything like that, but why don't we do anything about it? I act as if I don't know. Everything can be destroyed but I simply do no belief that this(de wereld) can be destroyed. We are not wired to even imagine something like that. So I think what we should do to confront this ecological catastrophy, is not this new age stuff to break out of this technological manipulative world and find our roots in nature. But on the contrary, to cut of even more these roots in nature. We need more alienation from nature, we should become more artificial."

Does he mean that we need te become more technological so we can imagine the disaster that could happen and confront it? Because we are now still holding on to the illusion of living in between trees?
Or does he mean that nature is an illusion and it could just as much be something technological/artificial? That trees and all that are maybe just a phase..and we'll "overcome" it if you will?

Nature is merely a defintion...?


#2    667-Neighbor of the Beast

667-Neighbor of the Beast

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dayton, OH US

  • "I get to be the bearer of good news...."

Posted 09 March 2010 - 03:56 PM

View PostTriade, on 09 March 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

I've just watched a documentary where Slavoj Zizek also had his say about ecology.

Now I don't completely follow a certain argument of his, and maybe someone could clarify?

He says: "danger of global warming and everything like that, but why don't we do anything about it? I act as if I don't know. Everything can be destroyed but I simply do no belief that this(de wereld) can be destroyed. We are not wired to even imagine something like that. So I think what we should do to confront this ecological catastrophy, is not this new age stuff to break out of this technological manipulative world and find our roots in nature. But on the contrary, to cut of even more these roots in nature. We need more alienation from nature, we should become more artificial."

Does he mean that we need te become more technological so we can imagine the disaster that could happen and confront it? Because we are now still holding on to the illusion of living in between trees?
Or does he mean that nature is an illusion and it could just as much be something technological/artificial? That trees and all that are maybe just a phase..and we'll "overcome" it if you will?

Nature is merely a defintion...?

To me, it sounds like he is saying that in order to stop ecological disasters, such as global warming, we don't need to "go green" and become even more dependent on nature.  Rather, we should turn our back on nature altogether, and become so technologically independent, that we can separate ourselves from nature completely, basically allowing the planet to heal itself.  This could be a logical solution, except for the fact that everything we use, consume, make, or produce has it's basic ingredients in nature.  Even things such as plastic, gasoline, and synthetic products, are all unnatural combinations of natural ingredients or refined from natural substances.  There is no way we could keep producing anything on this planet without affecting the planet in some way.

Edited by 667-Neighbor of the Beast, 09 March 2010 - 03:56 PM.

There is justice in the world.

#3    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,900 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 09 March 2010 - 07:52 PM

I don't think becoming more artificial will give us a better vantage point to confront catastrophes in the future.  Better technology will, but not more mechanical.


#4    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:46 AM

View Post667-Neighbor of the Beast, on 09 March 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

To me, it sounds like he is saying that in order to stop ecological disasters, such as global warming, we don't need to "go green" and become even more dependent on nature.  Rather, we should turn our back on nature altogether, and become so technologically independent, that we can separate ourselves from nature completely, basically allowing the planet to heal itself.  This could be a logical solution, except for the fact that everything we use, consume, make, or produce has it's basic ingredients in nature.  Even things such as plastic, gasoline, and synthetic products, are all unnatural combinations of natural ingredients or refined from natural substances.  There is no way we could keep producing anything on this planet without affecting the planet in some way.

ah yes! thx for that. That's indeed probably what he meant by it.
Hmmm, I do feel he's on to something..but as you mentioned we still need the destruction of nature to get our technology. But I guess he means striving to become more artificial to that point that we completely create objects out of something non-naturalistic.

Deserves some thought imho.


#5    Alchera

Alchera

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2009
  • Gender:Male

  • This world is life
    This “clouds-and-wonders”
    Is all I need
    And it will never go

Posted 12 March 2010 - 06:48 PM

We are a part of nature, not a serparate entity, it cannot be any other way. Everything we have made is just nature turned inside out and shaped into new forms. Even technology is a part of nature.

Posted Image

#6    667-Neighbor of the Beast

667-Neighbor of the Beast

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dayton, OH US

  • "I get to be the bearer of good news...."

Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:11 PM

View PostTriade, on 10 March 2010 - 07:46 AM, said:

ah yes! thx for that. That's indeed probably what he meant by it.
Hmmm, I do feel he's on to something..but as you mentioned we still need the destruction of nature to get our technology. But I guess he means striving to become more artificial to that point that we completely create objects out of something non-naturalistic.

Deserves some thought imho.
But that is exactly my point.  The only resources we have are what is provided by the earth, and we refine what we need out of those.  There is no other source.  So, there really is a non-naturalistic source for us to create anything out of.  The only way for us to create anything without using something provided by the earth is to literally create it out of nothing, which is impossible.  Everything we create has a source for it's materials somewhere on this earth.

There is justice in the world.

#7    J.B.

J.B.

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • Deadpan snarker in your midst: Jokers beware. I eat jokes for fun and spit out seriousness just because that's how I roll. :P

Posted 19 March 2010 - 03:52 PM

He means, I think, we should study every role we can from nature and create an artificial way to reproduce it. That way, we can redefine nature as our own technological world we can completely control. Like using Gentech to improve plants, or researching the way plants pull CO2 out of the air and making CO2 scrubbers for smokestacks that are even more effective.


#8    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 March 2010 - 01:17 PM

Thx for the input J.B. ! Makes sense. And didn't know about that Gentech stuff until now, useful info  :tu:


#9    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:55 PM

View Post667-Neighbor of the Beast, on 12 March 2010 - 10:11 PM, said:

But that is exactly my point.  The only resources we have are what is provided by the earth, and we refine what we need out of those.  There is no other source.  So, there really is a non-naturalistic source for us to create anything out of.  The only way for us to create anything without using something provided by the earth is to literally create it out of nothing, which is impossible.  Everything we create has a source for it's materials somewhere on this earth.

What about 'solar power'? Wind, wave, and water energy are all solar. KennyB





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users