Slaves to Grass
My next post was going to be about games, but as with all other posts that are vaguely about me, it very rapidly descended into an angst-ridden whinge about how pathetic I am. I have no reason to believe anyone is especially interested in me telling myself I'm a failure as a person (and I'm pretty well practiced at dissecting myself and coming up with a diagnosis of "complete loser"), so I'll blog about something else instead.
The more eagle-eyed of you may have noticed that a substantial number of links over on the right hand side of this blog are TED talks. (On reflection, I think the number of people who visit this blog often enough to notice changes in the sidebar despite my complete lack of posting is probably about zero).
Top of the sidebar right now is This one
It's an interesting concept - to view ourselves in evolutionary symbiosis, in the same way we view other species. We understand that flowers and fruit evolved the way they did to attract birds, bees and monkeys. We know (despite our instincts to anthropomorphise everything) that getting eaten is the intended purpose of the fruit. However, as Michael says, we don't see ourselves in similar relationships. Your stance on ecological issues largely just casts you as "omnipotent guardian" or "omnipotent exploiter". We believe ourselves to be separate from "nature", and we certainly feel we know best what's good for "nature" (although again, our tenancy to cast all animals with human emotions and desires is somewhat counter productive here).
I don't think the ideas behind the Polyface Farm model he mentions are anything especially new (indeed, before industrialisation and the introduction of an endless list of chemicals to farming, farmers largely had no option but to do this kind of thing, go check out medieval farming) but it's always good to see someone using and promoting a relationship with nature which is a little more sympathetic to the way it works. I hope the idea catches on, but I doubt it will.
Take a look at a food chain diagram in almost any school text book, and I bet you find grass at the "bottom" of the chain. The lowest of the low, eating nothing but sunshine. The argument here is that this is an oversimplified view of the world, that the relationships are much more complex and thus "bottom" depends entirely on your perspective. Grass is a hugely successful organism, covering (I think) more of the earth's surface than anything else (except the ocean, which doesn't really count). It's a king of species - after all, it's convinced humanity to tend to it - to plant it, to feed it, to water it, to weed out the competition.
Our view of the world puts us at the top, the pinnacle of evolution and the rightful masters of all we survey. Maybe this is just because the idea that we might not be in charge is something that scares us. (a significant number of our collective phobias relate to a loss of control) But it reminds me of another worldview, which in days gone by put the earth at the center of the solar system, and really it's just as wrong. We need to step back a little, and view the entire planet as a single system, one we are part of, not just custodians of.
The more eagle-eyed of you may have noticed that a substantial number of links over on the right hand side of this blog are TED talks. (On reflection, I think the number of people who visit this blog often enough to notice changes in the sidebar despite my complete lack of posting is probably about zero).
Top of the sidebar right now is This one
It's an interesting concept - to view ourselves in evolutionary symbiosis, in the same way we view other species. We understand that flowers and fruit evolved the way they did to attract birds, bees and monkeys. We know (despite our instincts to anthropomorphise everything) that getting eaten is the intended purpose of the fruit. However, as Michael says, we don't see ourselves in similar relationships. Your stance on ecological issues largely just casts you as "omnipotent guardian" or "omnipotent exploiter". We believe ourselves to be separate from "nature", and we certainly feel we know best what's good for "nature" (although again, our tenancy to cast all animals with human emotions and desires is somewhat counter productive here).
I don't think the ideas behind the Polyface Farm model he mentions are anything especially new (indeed, before industrialisation and the introduction of an endless list of chemicals to farming, farmers largely had no option but to do this kind of thing, go check out medieval farming) but it's always good to see someone using and promoting a relationship with nature which is a little more sympathetic to the way it works. I hope the idea catches on, but I doubt it will.
Take a look at a food chain diagram in almost any school text book, and I bet you find grass at the "bottom" of the chain. The lowest of the low, eating nothing but sunshine. The argument here is that this is an oversimplified view of the world, that the relationships are much more complex and thus "bottom" depends entirely on your perspective. Grass is a hugely successful organism, covering (I think) more of the earth's surface than anything else (except the ocean, which doesn't really count). It's a king of species - after all, it's convinced humanity to tend to it - to plant it, to feed it, to water it, to weed out the competition.
Our view of the world puts us at the top, the pinnacle of evolution and the rightful masters of all we survey. Maybe this is just because the idea that we might not be in charge is something that scares us. (a significant number of our collective phobias relate to a loss of control) But it reminds me of another worldview, which in days gone by put the earth at the center of the solar system, and really it's just as wrong. We need to step back a little, and view the entire planet as a single system, one we are part of, not just custodians of.
posted by Sarum at
Sunday, February 10, 2008
0 Comments
Links to this post
