Happy New Year

 

Human Vs Nature

For millions of years, humans lived in a predator-prey relationship with all species. Equilibrium existed on the Earth. As we lost sight of our origins, we began to develop tools and ways of living that insulated us from predators, the elements and the uncertainty of hunger. We explained away nature with mythology. We became arrogant, and developed religious and state institutions that justified our behavior and helped us to live with the atrocities committed every day in the name of god, king, country, ego and sport. Humans stopped looking to nature for answers, and instead came up with answers that suited the moment.

All life, all around the Earth, is now subject to the whims of the dominant culture: a culture repressed, disconnected completely from the wildness of the Earth and the wildness in itself. Only through this alienation could anyone commit such as the captains of industry and government do daily.

First we are animals

As you study the natural world, pay special attention to the other animals. What do they spend their waking hours busied with? Are they hunting? Are they preoccupied with mating? Are they building or finding shelter? Look at the other animals and see what the real focus of their lives is. Draw the inspiration for your daily life from the patterns of the natural world.

Survey your life. Are you spending your life striving for the things that an animal does, or are you toiling for things outside of those natural needs? Try to see the human place within nature. What changes can you make as you strive to live within that natural place? Strive to find your animal niche. Look at your life and make a decision to avoid the things that are not part of your natural animal. Live each moment with purpose, as does the squirrel or the dragonfly.

As you observe the natural world ask yourself, "Do animals take more than they need?" And ask yourself, "How many animals destroy for reasons other than self-preservation?"

What are you eating?

Are you actually sustaining yourself, or are you slowly killing yourself and the world around you? When you look at the natural world, do you see other animals passing up their basic nutritional needs for poison?

When do you think that the humanimal evolved? What foods do you think were available to that animal? Do you think that you are evolved to eat the diet you are currently eating?

Investigate the impact that your food choices have on the natural world. How much energy is expended to produce your food? Is it less damaging to the natural world if you grow a radish, or if you get it from the market? Ask yourself, "What kind of ecological damage is connected to an organic apple from the other side of the Earth?" Is processed vegan food any better for you or the planet than raising chickens in the city?

How many of your food needs can actually meet for yourself? Can you find it locally? Where does it grow? Before eating that piece of fruit, ask yourself, where does this come from? Can you find something similar growing wild in your neighborhood or bioregion?

As we think about our food, let's think about what makes sense, and why it makes sense.
Eat deliberately.

Where do you live?

Where does your home come from? Most of us live in houses which are barriers against nature. From our windows we may be able to watch the birds, but we can't feel the flutter of their wings in the air, we can't feel the chill of winter, can't smell the rain. It doesn't have to be this way. Our homes could be inspired by the homes of other animals, allowing us to dwell in the natural world again.

Look at the animals around you. Where do they live? Do they own the land? What are their shelters made of? Can you even see their shelters, or do they blend in so well with their surroundings that you can't find them? Are the animals' homes larger than they require? Does the animal build its home in a place that threatens the animal's very existence? How does your home compare with these?

An animal's home is utilitarian, not excessive. Animals' homes are made of natural materials: mud, sticks, sod, bamboo, straw. Animals' homes will degrade, once abandoned, or they will be taken over and maintained by another animal. Animals live in homes that breathe, that don't poison them. When you see an animal shelter, you see it as part of nature, not an impenetrable barrier between that animal and the natural world.

Our shelters should be constantly changing, growing, degrading, according to our needs. Shelter is transient, malleable, something that we can abandon from season to season, if our needs dictate.

We strive to find ways of healing ourselves and the land, letting the land heal us, and living in place. A place will only reveal itself if we are there long enough to see the seasons change, to sit very quietly, very still for a long time. This is the process of re-wilding ourselves, becoming feral. Re-wilding the Earth, defending wildness where it remains, and stewarding injured land onto the healing path of re-wilding, is our way. Learning the ways of nature-this is the path of Deep Ecology.

Who you’ll be when you grow up ?

You got your green eyes from your mother and your freckles from your father. But where did you get your thrill-seeking personality and talent for singing? Did you learn these from your parents or was it predetermined by your genes? While it's clear that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetic waters get a bit murkier when it comes to an individual's behaviour, intelligence, and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature vs. nurture has never really been won. We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. But we do know that both play a part.

What is Nature vs Nurture?

It has been reported that the use of the terms "nature" and "nurture" as a convenient catch-phrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development. Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behaviour. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behaviour.

Fast-growing understanding of the human genome has recently made it clear that both sides are partly right. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature. End of story, right? Nope. The "nature vs nurture" debate still rages on, as scientist fight over how much of who we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment.

The Nature Theory –Heredity

Scientists have known for years that traits such as eye color and hair color are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell. The Nature Theory takes things a step further to say that more traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual's DNA.

• The search for "behavioural" genes is the source of constant debate. Many fear that genetic arguments might be used to excuse criminal acts or justify divorce.
• The most debated issue pertaining to the nature theory is the exsistence of a "gay gene," pointing to a genetic component to sexual orientation.
• An April, 1998 article in LIFE Magazine, "Were You Born That Way" by George Howe Colt, claimed that "new studies show it's mostly in your genes."
• If genetics didn't play a part, then fraternal twins, reared under the same conditions, would be alike, regardless of differences in their genes. But, while studies show they do more closely resemble each other than do non-twin brothers and sisters, they also show these same striking similarities when reared apart - as in similar studies done with identical twins.

The Nurture Theory –Environment

While not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters of the nurture theory believe they ultimately don't matter - that our behavioural aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

• American psychologist John Watson, best known for his controversial experiments with a young orphan named Albert, demonstrated that the acquisition of a phobia could be explained by classical conditioning. A strong proponent of environmental learning, he said: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select...regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors.
• Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner's early experiments produced pigeons that could dance, do figure eights, and play tennis. Today known as the father of behavioural science, he eventually went on to prove that human behaviour could be conditioned in much the same way as animals.
• A study in New Scientist suggests that sense of humor is a learned trait, influenced by family and cultural environment, and not genetically determined.

If environment didn't play a part in determining an individual's traits and behaviours, then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects. 

So, was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over time in response to our experiences? Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up?