Dec 12, 2007 3:02:54 AM cite

Can a person be perceptive enough to see our planet in a way that tells them that they too are part of nature? Yes many people are, Nature is our mother, our home. We are already a part of nature but we may not see it due to the illusion that we are physically separated, we are separated only in our mind. Mythology is the key to our reunion with nature.

by Thai sean

Jan 29, 2007 9:09:31 PM cite

I grew up in a city that lost it's trees and greenery when I was very young. As I grew into my late teens we would laugh if we would see bird droppings on someones car saying that they must live in a poor part of town. I had no idea. Yet a secret quiet place that I allowed no one to see for so very llong was a child that enjoyed watching ants, feeding the pigeons and puttling baby birds back into their nest when they fell. As time went on in my life I felt this closeness to the earth that was so inseperable to me..then it dawned on me...I WAS the Earth..Every cell depended upon this planet of ours. I knew in my soul that we are indeed stardust. I'm not happy unless I'm outside with my hands in the soil and the sun of my face, I love watching the stars at night and noticing all the nocturnal animals that come out. I feed the birds and some deer in the winter and look at snowflakes with awe. Now let me tell you where I came from..The inner city of Detroit from a family of 7 with a violent father and a dysfunctional mother. The only things on our little brains and souls were to survive (which many didn't). Yet I used to plant cucumbers in the dry soil just to see them sprout..the beauty of that..Did we eat them? No..My dad or mom would come out and pluck them out for the sheer pleasure of it..I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are all kinds of us people out there from so many different enviroments that came to or are coming to the truth that we are an intrical part our earth and the earth is an intrical part of us...Don't give up hope..you just never know who the meek ones really are..

by quaya

Oct 20, 2006 8:49:50 AM cite

Great question, Sabastiao! I think that there have been some very interesting and illuminating responses on this table. However, something I ask myself is why we do not have this perception. Some cultures undoubtedly have, although in many societies, we tend to be more interested in our short-term economic goals, which don’t allow for humans to be considered part of the natural environment. I am currently a university student studying “ecological anthropology.” Many of my friends have been confused as to what this means. Anthropology is the study of humans, so how can these seemingly contradictory terms be used in conjunction with one another? Yet when we think about it, a study which incorporates humans into ecology and the “natural” environment makes huge sense. After all, humans make use of the environment; we live within it, and it is our unsustainable lifestyles which are causing increasing problems across the globe. We cannot keep on thinking of humans as separate from nature, but instead must learn to understand how we interact with nature. How can we expect to change our lifestyles to be environmentally sustainable if we keep on separating the two? However, going back to your question, I do not think that separating human from “the natural environment” is an inherently human characteristic. The perception of humans as separate from nature is, in my opinion, a result of cultural upbringing. This leads me to ask some questions in order to rethink how we conceptualize humans and the environment. How are we raised in our societies to think of humans as different from “nature’? We can look at the implications in our language. For example, how we define the non-human environment as the “natural environment.” Do you feel that this notion of a natural environment which excludes humans, then implies that humans are not natural? Is this simply a myth which has been used by societies in order to legitimate our exploitation of natural resources? I believe humans are indeed capable of perceiving themselves as part of nature. There are many societies in which humans live in a sustainable manner, viewing the animals they hunt and trees they chop down as fellow living beings which need to be conserved and used only when needed. For example, many Canadian First Nations believe in a reciprocal relationship with nature, as do other societies which have been mentioned (such as in Benson Venegas’ response). I was curious as to how these differences in perceptions arise. Psychologist Bruce Charlton wrote an essay asking, “what is the meaning of life?” He looked at how different types of societies perceive their world and what their value systems are. Charlton believes that the historical adoption of agriculture marked a shift in societies’ worldviews. As societies began to practice agriculture, it no longer became necessary for societies to view the world as a whole, in which humans are just as part of nature as anything else. As Charlton describes, children in societies which adopted agriculture were taught “to treat as objects things which were previously treated as agents” so they could use these objects for economic gain. This objectification of nature was necessary to become economically successful, which ensured a society’s survival. So, I suppose, if we believe that this objectification of nature (and hence separation of humans from nature) is a taught experience, then change is possible! But how do we go about changing people’s perceptions? Do you believe people who separate humans from nature have the ability to reintegrate the two? Do you feel this is important to ensure environmental sustainability, or even the human race’s survival?

by Erin

Oct 20, 2006 5:03:17 AM cite

Of course, Indigenous people have carried this perception for thousands of years. We are one with nature and from a holistic perspective, this means there is an underlying interconnectedness with everything Mother Nature created.

by kkane

Sep 11, 2006 6:43:09 AM cite

Hello Sabastiao, I believe that both of these comments are correct but may not realize the depth of the problem. Many populations have lived in harmony with nature (the Native Americans for one) and some still do but are in jeprody. The problem started with the ancient Greeks, or before, one contributing idea was that man could reason out all the answers to all questions about the world without actually examining the world. The idea of a philosopher in an ivory tower could reason out all the knowledge of the world contributed to the seperation of man from nature. We have a 'long row to hoe' to bring enough people back.

by thedoc

Sep 10, 2006 1:55:49 PM cite

Yes, I agree with the previous answer. There is actually a lot of knowledge about how our perceptions are conditioned by culture and how we can de-program ourselves and cultivate "other ways of knowing" that allow us to perceive the magical and pragmatic connections between all living beings - and yes, see ourselves (as human beings) as part of Nature. The emerging field of Ecopsychology is all about this, as are various shamanistic traditions, Buddhism, and Deep Ecology. As Wendell Berry has written, "The idea that we live in something called 'the environment' is utterly preposterous. . . . The world that environs us, that is around us, is also within us. We are made of it; we eat, drink, and breathe it; it is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh."

by mtnlion

Sep 10, 2006 12:02:28 AM cite

Absolutely. Such a perception is inheirent within the Human Being. We are essentially "out of practice" because of the attenetion we pay to survival within the "man-made" elements of the world. I would be a good thing if our children were able to spend the summer vacation time out in nature in order to retrain and activate that perception.

by notcriswell

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Yes, of course. Every person can be perceptive, it must be perceptive. Every person have to develop this perception, otherwise our civilization will die out. Because every person on the earth is a part of nature, it´s an element of this world , it´s an atom in this world. It´s a small but very important particle. Every person is an important particle of this life. And every of these particles has to feel responsibility for events in the world, because, if this particle is badly injured, its physical and emotional health is harmed and the source of energy , the source of good energy; is closed , it means that the whole system is suffering. It ´s in the same way as in some mechanism. If there a small bulb, a small cathode or a small chip is damaged the whole system breaks down.We have a lot of damaged cells. I spoke with professor Albert Popp, he has a very neat theory. His theory is very important and interesting: Every person consists of light. Every person consists not of water but of light. Albert Popp has constructed machines which can help to diagnose diseases. The damaged cells don´t let the light through. And in the same way we can find out dark holes and died cells in our society and in our system. Our negative energy and our negative point of view don´t give the light the opportunity to spread and to develop constructively. We interrupt this chain. And if each of us understood that this fact is very important, we would win as civilization.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: That could be possible to achieve... there were so many wars in the past, so of course it would be better if people are perceptive enough. I think that this is the future.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: Well. I think that the human beings should be conscient that they too are part of nature. This is something that we have lost in the “advanced” countries. Those “primitive” societies that have always lived dependendly on the forces of nature and that have lived in harmony with the cycles of nature clearly know that the human beings live in an interdependence with their environment. I think that once again we are coming to the subject of education. I believe that only through education people can understand that we are a part of a system and that we depend on it. And this system is totally changing and we are destroying it. Once again the metaphor of the planet as a body appears in the education of the human beings. We have to understand that our body in which we live depends also on the environment. Our exteriour body which is the planet and nature has to live in harmony with our internal body. And only through educational processes we will get to this level of perception. Educational processes can make people be conscious of being a part of our nature.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea: We need to educate ourseles and to develop education, to organize and to mobilize ourselves collectively to defend our identity, our diversity, our environment with it's natural resources.

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Sabastião, your question is, pretty much answers itself. The necessity for us to see our living organism, our human organism, as an integral, living, component in a global ecosystem, is of course something which is lacking both in terms of our thinking and our educational systems. So, the question is can human beings be perceptive enough. I think regrettably perhaps they will not be perceptive enough, and regrettably the eventual and inevitable depletion of our renewable resources will force people to contemplate the consequences of their actions and everything that they have done to this. And the necessity for change unfortunately and regrettably comes about as a result of the necessity to change rather than the willfulness to change. So, it’s always difficult for me to understand why people don’t understand that their bodies are merely a microcosm of all the other living things in the earth, and how our bodies are dependant upon the fitness and the ability - our ability - to draw from other living organisms in the world, until eventually I think we will run out of those organisms. And I think to a certain extent our separation or alienation from those other living organisms to a large extent contribute to our sickness and our ability – inability to get healthy. So, I guess your question, people will only be perceptive enough when their very existence is threatened. And the regret is is that it’s being threatened right now and they actually cannot see it. So perhaps the answer is no. I think perhaps the answer is no.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Answertext will be available soon.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: This is a beautiful question from a beautiful artist, and it’s very exciting that Sabastiao has been part of this table. I wish he could have been here today to answer in part his question, and to answer others. But, in terms of the question, I think it really gets at the dialectic of human life, the dialectic that you are a part of the world, and how we act upon and change the world. And that really, once one begins to have that understanding, it transforms so much in one’s world view and that can be a basis for profound rethinking of so many social questions that we confront today. Today, we see the environment is an externality to our economic system. But, of course, that economic system, which is concerned only with short-term interests, only concerned with profit, only concerned with accumulation can’t calculate, can’t understand the genuine consequences, not only for the environment, somehow distinct entity, but the very real impact that that has on us, on ourselves on the basis for our survival.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal:

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 2:05:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think definitely, yes. In fact we're required to be perceptive, awakened, sensitive beings. And we can be perceptive to the extent that we open our global lens and the global mind and not be still caught in the blinders of a egocentric mind or egocentric lens. And this is a theme I’ve been bringing out throughout all of these answers to the first 49 questions, as it all turns on the consciousness and the lens of the mind that we are using. And looking at it from the point of view of global wisdom and global consciousness and realizing that our great wisdom traditions have seen the difference between making yourselves as a person from the egocentric mindset. Or the lens of the mind where you take yourself as a separate existing ego and you process all of your information on the screen of the ego mind as one model. And all of our great teachings have taught us that and shown that we need to cross into a more awakened, integral, holistic way of thinking and seeing and using our minds. And that is global consciousness and global spirituality. And that’s the difference of our sensitivity and perceptivity. And if we are looking and living through ego lens, we are cut-off from ourselves from each other and from nature and can’t really see our deep connection with the nature. But our teachers have shown us if we can become human, a full human, a mature human, and awakened to this integral global mind and global lens, where we experience our connectivity with ourselves, with each other, with the entire ecology and with nature. Then, that’s when we become a human flourishing being. And that person, that kind of person, has a sensitivity to really find oneself connected with nature deeply and with oneself and with others. So that is the legacy of being a true human. To have the perceptivity, the sensitivity, to see one’s deep connection with nature and the sacredness of all life and of nature.

by Ashok Gangadean