baš_čelik
Primećen član
- Poruka
- 658
Dabar gradi branu, mrav mravinjak, ptica gnjezdo, pauk mrezu.... itd. to je sve prirodno.
Zasto kada to covjek gradi postaje "vjestacko" i dobija epitet loseg?
U cemu je tacno razlika izmedju onoga sto covjek izgradi i onoga sto zivotinje izgrade?
There are even some people who see all the works of man as bad things. They
have a sense of loss that the artificial is replacing the natural. They have the idea
that the biological is good and the ideological is bad. This is the same as if some
of the members of the first tiny species of wriggling things in the primordial soup
bemoaned the fact that their species, with its new capability of moving about,
was knocking down all the beautiful but fragile little chemical crystal towers that
grew around them.
A modern scientist, able to study that primordial ooze, might also see the
chemical crystals as pretty, but would find them far less interesting than the new
life forms. The scientist could recreate the crystals easily enough, but would be
hard pressed to reproduce that first spark of life that started the evolution of the
little wriggly ones.
The small wriggly environmentalist would mourn for the crystal, simply because
he was too close to his own kind to see how much more interesting he was. He
would be unable to conceive of what further beauty and grace would later evolve
in the form of the animals that would follow after his kind. Likewise, the human
environmentalist is blinded to the beauty of his own species – the beauty of the
things that human beings produce and might one day become.
Imagine an environmentalist’s nightmare, an active oil refinery; big metal holding
tanks and cooling towers, a complex array of metal pipes, and smokestacks with
flames shooting out the top. The sight of such a place might make an
environmentalist cry.
Now imagine the exact same scene, but imagine that human beings did not
produce that refinery. Suppose it was just recently discovered, and was found to
be created by some sort of animal. Let’s say a rare species of giant insect built
this incredible factory to convert raw organic materials into a burnable form for
heat to incubate its eggs.
The scene hasn’t changed at all, but now nature lovers would flock from around
the globe to see such a sight. It might be declared the most wondrous natural
phenomena anyone had ever seen.
Environmentalists would still be moved to tears, but they would be tears of
another sort. They would marvel at this incredibly beautiful thing that nature had
produced. They would be enchanted by the amazingly unique species that could
produce such a complex structure.
Now try another way of looking at our species from the outside. Imagine you are
some sort of intelligent space creature that was born and lives in the depths of
space. You have traveled from star system to star system and seen millions if not
billions of planets. On many you have seen beautiful geological formations of
complex crystals. On some there has been organic life and on a few even
complex animals that you have been fascinated to study.
One day you find something absolutely brand new to your experience. You
approach a planet that is fairly close to a normal sort of G-type star. There you
see what you might think to yourself is the most beautiful sight ever to grace your many optic organs. Every other planet you have ever seen close to a star is
brightly lit by the star on one side and dark on the other.
This planet is different. The dark side of this planet sparkles with its own light.
The shapes of the land masses are clearly made visible by a myriad of little
points of light. What could cause such a thing? Is it Geological or Biological?
How could it be either? Neither has ever produced such a thing in your extensive
past experience. There is something wonderful and new at work on this planet.
Once you trade the word "artificial" for "ideological,” the idea of labeling the
phenomena that result from ideology as inferior to that of geology or biology
becomes self-defeating. Your philosophy that reveres the natural over the
artificial is itself an artificial idea. Your appreciation of the beauty of nature is
ideological.
Plants and animals don’t know that they are beautiful; they just are. Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder – a human beholder. Plants and animals lack the
ideological capacity to appreciate the beauty of their own species. Only human
beings have the ability to see themselves as either beautiful or ugly.
Why would you want to limit yourself to using just half of that ability?
And so what if we are still somewhat ugly now? So were those little wriggly things
that appeared at the beginnings of biology. As the first proto-creatures of
ideology, it is quite likely our destiny to evolve into something much bigger and
more beautiful yet.
Of course there will be growing pains along the way. We still have a long way to
go, and a lot of questions to answer.
Zasto kada to covjek gradi postaje "vjestacko" i dobija epitet loseg?
U cemu je tacno razlika izmedju onoga sto covjek izgradi i onoga sto zivotinje izgrade?
There are even some people who see all the works of man as bad things. They
have a sense of loss that the artificial is replacing the natural. They have the idea
that the biological is good and the ideological is bad. This is the same as if some
of the members of the first tiny species of wriggling things in the primordial soup
bemoaned the fact that their species, with its new capability of moving about,
was knocking down all the beautiful but fragile little chemical crystal towers that
grew around them.
A modern scientist, able to study that primordial ooze, might also see the
chemical crystals as pretty, but would find them far less interesting than the new
life forms. The scientist could recreate the crystals easily enough, but would be
hard pressed to reproduce that first spark of life that started the evolution of the
little wriggly ones.
The small wriggly environmentalist would mourn for the crystal, simply because
he was too close to his own kind to see how much more interesting he was. He
would be unable to conceive of what further beauty and grace would later evolve
in the form of the animals that would follow after his kind. Likewise, the human
environmentalist is blinded to the beauty of his own species – the beauty of the
things that human beings produce and might one day become.
Imagine an environmentalist’s nightmare, an active oil refinery; big metal holding
tanks and cooling towers, a complex array of metal pipes, and smokestacks with
flames shooting out the top. The sight of such a place might make an
environmentalist cry.
Now imagine the exact same scene, but imagine that human beings did not
produce that refinery. Suppose it was just recently discovered, and was found to
be created by some sort of animal. Let’s say a rare species of giant insect built
this incredible factory to convert raw organic materials into a burnable form for
heat to incubate its eggs.
The scene hasn’t changed at all, but now nature lovers would flock from around
the globe to see such a sight. It might be declared the most wondrous natural
phenomena anyone had ever seen.
Environmentalists would still be moved to tears, but they would be tears of
another sort. They would marvel at this incredibly beautiful thing that nature had
produced. They would be enchanted by the amazingly unique species that could
produce such a complex structure.
Now try another way of looking at our species from the outside. Imagine you are
some sort of intelligent space creature that was born and lives in the depths of
space. You have traveled from star system to star system and seen millions if not
billions of planets. On many you have seen beautiful geological formations of
complex crystals. On some there has been organic life and on a few even
complex animals that you have been fascinated to study.
One day you find something absolutely brand new to your experience. You
approach a planet that is fairly close to a normal sort of G-type star. There you
see what you might think to yourself is the most beautiful sight ever to grace your many optic organs. Every other planet you have ever seen close to a star is
brightly lit by the star on one side and dark on the other.
This planet is different. The dark side of this planet sparkles with its own light.
The shapes of the land masses are clearly made visible by a myriad of little
points of light. What could cause such a thing? Is it Geological or Biological?
How could it be either? Neither has ever produced such a thing in your extensive
past experience. There is something wonderful and new at work on this planet.
Once you trade the word "artificial" for "ideological,” the idea of labeling the
phenomena that result from ideology as inferior to that of geology or biology
becomes self-defeating. Your philosophy that reveres the natural over the
artificial is itself an artificial idea. Your appreciation of the beauty of nature is
ideological.
Plants and animals don’t know that they are beautiful; they just are. Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder – a human beholder. Plants and animals lack the
ideological capacity to appreciate the beauty of their own species. Only human
beings have the ability to see themselves as either beautiful or ugly.
Why would you want to limit yourself to using just half of that ability?
And so what if we are still somewhat ugly now? So were those little wriggly things
that appeared at the beginnings of biology. As the first proto-creatures of
ideology, it is quite likely our destiny to evolve into something much bigger and
more beautiful yet.
Of course there will be growing pains along the way. We still have a long way to
go, and a lot of questions to answer.
