I’ve wanted to talk about this subject for a long time now.
This post is somewhat of a sequel to Nature: A compilation of thoughts. It is kinda necessary to read it in order to understand what I’m talking about here.
Ecology is the relationship between organisms and their environment. Being “eco-logic” technically means having a correct relationship with your (natural) environment. But what is correct anyway? Why would be decreasing our CO2 emissions correct? Why is reducing deforestation correct? How can we define what is a correct behaviour to our environment? Saving ourselves by “saving the planet” seems hypocritically anthropocentric coming from people claiming to love nature.
The planet, nature, as most things in the universe, is cyclical. And as all things cycles have an end. And this is one of my critics against ecology: By “preserving” the ecosystem, you are hindering it’s cyclical characteristic, which in turn is anti-natural.
Being in harmony with nature would mean sticking to your biological needs: eating, sleeping, fucking (to perpetrate the species). There’s not more to it. There’s no fighting for ideals, no protecting other species (unless they provide something for your own survival. Members of a species have many times protected other species when they have a symbiotic relationship), saving the universe, no hobbies, past-time, no other work than provide food (which is extrapolated to gaining money in most parts of the human society).
We could argue that ecology is the protection of the symbiotic relationship between human kind and all other species. But if you look closely, we don’t really have a symbiotic relationship. We don’t view other species in a symbiotic point of view. We view them as resources. And in a symbiotic relationship, both parts give and take, and human kind only takes. It just gives to the resource-species what it needs to be even more productive (fertilizers, genetic modification, pesticides). We have even pushed to extinction most varieties of certain vegetable species: for example, today we have about 12 varieties of corn, while 80 years ago, we had about 300 varieties. We have morphed natural selection from “survival of the fittest” to “survival of the most yummy/productive to humans”.
And to this I want to come the next part:
Humans are probably Nature’s new natural selection system. We are actively choosing what species live and which ones do not. We are the ultimate factor in deciding on the life and habitat of most species.
And even further: I believe we Humans are Nature’s tool to end the current cycle of Earth. We were designed to consume and destroy all current life in order to new kinds of life to emerge. We are the reapers of this world. We are here to kill most things alive in order to allow nature to restart a new cycle.
Ecology opposes the end of the cycle (as it would mean the end of humankind).
I believe that, if mankind really wants to save itself, they need to create something like Anthropososy (άνθρωπος σώσει = save man or something like that). This would mean an active research to discover ways in which we could survive the end of the cycle, instead of preventing it (which ultimately is impossible, and personally seems boring).
Ecology is a fight against nature, not in it’s favour. Man is nature’s ultimate predators: we are here to kill and consume all, even ourselves.
On a more personal note: I don’t care what happens to humankind after my lifetime. So I’m not taking part on either ecology or anthropososy. It just makes me amused and irritated at the same time when I hear an ecologist saying they’re either “saving the planet” or “in harmony with nature” (which is already funny on itself as nature is chaotic) or “I love nature” or stuff of the like.
Good evening all.