There is no such thing as “nature.”
[…]
2. There may not be an absolute nature-thing, but there is probably not an absolute anything-thing; meanwhile I would guess that ‘nature’ can remain useful to describe a space or force relatively unaffected by the rise of humans.
[…]
Thus, I think that it would be more productive to begin speaking of natures than to adopt a sliding-scale of human effects. […]
If there’s no anything-thing, does this mean we just go with more useful? Also, I like trees. Needed to be said.
What about a single and same ocean for all the drops? (In lieu of a lengthier, but ultimately equivalent comment)
-
fiatluxemburg reblogged this from absalomabsalom and added:
What about a single and same ocean for all the drops? (In lieu of a lengthier, but ultimately equivalent comment)
-
messianictime reblogged this from groupuscule and added:
So what you are basically saying, then,...ray-gun in your basement that nobody ever saw.....
-
eatingbooks liked this
-
absalomabsalom reblogged this from groupuscule and added:
Fair enough on #1, though recursive. As for #2 … One of the more interesting things that I’ve read about nature lately...
-
groupuscule reblogged this from absalomabsalom and added:
1. People have attitudes about “nature.” 2. There may not be an absolute nature-thing, but there is probably not an...
-
groupuscule posted this
