Reborn as Na'vi (unite our forces)

[Tarbtano]

1. The ongling destruction of the natural world, the world of nonhumans and also of humans, the insanity in the world that lets people slowly destroy what nutures them.
2. This is obviously something that has to be thought of. There is no use in claiming that there is a readymade tactic and plan available - otherwise you would see it in action by now. The point is to get working on that seriously.

1. You mean conservation and ecology?
2. Ah the classic scenario described in the fable , "The Belling of the Cat". In the fable, a mouse family living in a house are tired of the cat sneaking up and them and trying to devour them. A young mouse proposes they tie a bell around the feline's neck, so the ringing of the bell would alert them to it's presence. Everyone loves the idea, but then a wise old rat brings up a obvious flaw in the action. They have no ways of getting the bell around the cat's neck.
I'm gonna have to be the Wise Old Rat on this topic. One should not plan to far ahead with no means of execution. You can not 'make things up as you go along', when it comes to subjects like these

[AuroraGlacialis]

1. Well, I am doing a PhD in ecology, so yes, I like ecology and conservation, though not in the rather weak sense that these words have become. My philosophy is "Deep Ecology", which goes beyong trying to conserve some patches of forest or build little tiny nature reserves while the rest of the world is destroyed. Ecology as a science teaches us, that the world is interconnected at a deeper level. And frankly knowing these things tell us that some things have to fundamentally change. So many projects civilized people do have unforseen impacts on the environment that the conclusion is, that this society has to change fundamentally. And this is not done by just changing light bulbs and driving hybrid cars.
The change that has to happen is partly a technological one, to a large part an economic one, also a social one and not least a spiritual one. I think people have to develop a different relationship to technology (one that is careful and thoughtful), the economic model based on perpetual growth and employer/employee relationship has to end, the social changes have to part with the inequality, coldness, selfishness and rampant individualism and on a spiritual level people will have to find something that fulfils them. For you this may be your christianity, others may follow different philosophies, but to insist that no such thing is needed is probably a mistake. I am not a deeply spiritual person in the classical sense myself, but I have a set of ethical and philosophical concepts that define my view of the world. A purely mechanistical view as it is on the rise in industrialized societies is not beneficial, it means that people are turning into the machines they supposedly control. I think some parts of the rise of science as explanation for some things have been good - it is good that people are no longer killed on claims of doing magic and such, but parts of this is also detrimental for human mental health.
So I am not merely having the idea to protect a river or a forest, but I think that this goes further. Ecology is the science of interconnectedness and it tells me that the river and the nutrients it carries feed the fish in the ocean and the salmon bring them back up the rivers to the forests. It tells me that humans stopped that cycle by building large dams. But it also tells me that humans are part of the whole issue and not outside of it, that to save the river and the ocean and the forests, one also has to change humans and I think that this cannot be done by forcing "no-go"-zones on them or setting up legislations. What really has to happen is that people realize for themselves that it is a good thing that the river is alive, that it once was alive and that it should be alive once again. And then realize that they cannot just do what they did before and hope to have a living river, living oceans and a beautiful Earth at the same time. And then they have to change. Maybe some people will have to be forced to look and see and maybe some people even will have to be stopped from doing destruction, that may be.

And for your fable - it is utterly pessimistic and I find it detrimental to any idealistic ideas and any kind of activism to think that change cannot happen. Of course, some tactics may turn out to be not efficient, but that does not mean the overall goal cannot be achieved. If the mouse cannot safely tie a bell to the cat, then maybe it can trick the cat into using that neat and beautiful band with the shiny beautiful bell on it as a decoration? Or maybe the can has to be shot with an arrow that has a bell attached to it? Or maybe a brave mouse has to tie the bell around hte cats neck, knowing she will most certainly be harmed in the process? Or maybe they have to forget about the bell and poison the cat?
I am just saying that Yes of course there has to be thinking happening, planning, theorizing, developing tactics and much more. Maybe much of it willnot work, maybe some will, maybe "Eywa will hear us" (or God or Mother Nature) and some things just will play into it. Like the nuclear disaster in Japan. The resistance against nuclear technology in my country worked hard for the past decades to stop this madness and now possibly that event sets the final blow to nuclear power here and potentially at least lets others doubt or cancel their plans to revive that stuff.

I am starting to get together with people to develop ideas - admittedly, there is often more talk than any concrete actions, but one has to start at some point and cannot expect to get to the goal in a day... at least it is better to talk about these things and think about them than to just swim along, go to work, watch American Idol and drink some beer.

[seykxel txe´lan]

wow that is a lot of text


*Glues eyes to the screen to read*

[Tarbtano]

1. Well, I am doing a PhD in ecology, so yes, I like ecology and conservation, though not in the rather weak sense that these words have become. My philosophy is "Deep Ecology", which goes beyong trying to conserve some patches of forest or build little tiny nature reserves while the rest of the world is destroyed. Ecology as a science teaches us, that the world is interconnected at a deeper level. And frankly knowing these things tell us that some things have to fundamentally change. So many projects civilized people do have unforseen impacts on the environment that the conclusion is, that this society has to change fundamentally. And this is not done by just changing light bulbs and driving hybrid cars.
The change that has to happen is partly a technological one, to a large part an economic one, also a social one and not least a spiritual one. I think people have to develop a different relationship to technology (one that is careful and thoughtful), the economic model based on perpetual growth and employer/employee relationship has to end, the social changes have to part with the inequality, coldness, selfishness and rampant individualism and on a spiritual level people will have to find something that fulfils them. For you this may be your christianity, others may follow different philosophies, but to insist that no such thing is needed is probably a mistake. I am not a deeply spiritual person in the classical sense myself, but I have a set of ethical and philosophical concepts that define my view of the world. A purely mechanistical view as it is on the rise in industrialized societies is not beneficial, it means that people are turning into the machines they supposedly control. I think some parts of the rise of science as explanation for some things have been good - it is good that people are no longer killed on claims of doing magic and such, but parts of this is also detrimental for human mental health.
So I am not merely having the idea to protect a river or a forest, but I think that this goes further. Ecology is the science of interconnectedness and it tells me that the river and the nutrients it carries feed the fish in the ocean and the salmon bring them back up the rivers to the forests. It tells me that humans stopped that cycle by building large dams. But it also tells me that humans are part of the whole issue and not outside of it, that to save the river and the ocean and the forests, one also has to change humans and I think that this cannot be done by forcing "no-go"-zones on them or setting up legislations. What really has to happen is that people realize for themselves that it is a good thing that the river is alive, that it once was alive and that it should be alive once again. And then realize that they cannot just do what they did before and hope to have a living river, living oceans and a beautiful Earth at the same time. And then they have to change. Maybe some people will have to be forced to look and see and maybe some people even will have to be stopped from doing destruction, that may be.

And for your fable - it is utterly pessimistic and I find it detrimental to any idealistic ideas and any kind of activism to think that change cannot happen. Of course, some tactics may turn out to be not efficient, but that does not mean the overall goal cannot be achieved. If the mouse cannot safely tie a bell to the cat, then maybe it can trick the cat into using that neat and beautiful band with the shiny beautiful bell on it as a decoration? Or maybe the can has to be shot with an arrow that has a bell attached to it? Or maybe a brave mouse has to tie the bell around hte cats neck, knowing she will most certainly be harmed in the process? Or maybe they have to forget about the bell and poison the cat?
I am just saying that Yes of course there has to be thinking happening, planning, theorizing, developing tactics and much more. Maybe much of it willnot work, maybe some will, maybe "Eywa will hear us" (or God or Mother Nature) and some things just will play into it. Like the nuclear disaster in Japan. The resistance against nuclear technology in my country worked hard for the past decades to stop this madness and now possibly that event sets the final blow to nuclear power here and potentially at least lets others doubt or cancel their plans to revive that stuff.

I am starting to get together with people to develop ideas - admittedly, there is often more talk than any concrete actions, but one has to start at some point and cannot expect to get to the goal in a day... at least it is better to talk about these things and think about them than to just swim along, go to work, watch American Idol and drink some beer.

While I agree and applaud you for part one I think I may have to clear up some slit that got kicked up during part 2.f a proposed change
The moral of the fable is NOT that change is impossible or not worth the effort. If a proposed change is born of good intentions and has proper exicution, it can take all the effort in the world because it will be worth it. What the fable is trying to say is, in the shortest, easiest to understand terms; "Don't get ahead of yourself"

For instance, say people wanted to protect a species of crocodilian. Their goal is to save the species, but then one of them points out that they know very little of the reptile's habitat and breeding season. Had they gone on with the plan without the critical information, the results could be disasterous.

Proper planning and preparation is required in any large scale change