[at-l] Grand Unification Theory - WAS:Survival was Trail Etiquette

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (Clark Wright)]

I agree 100% this is fundamentally related to the Trail . . . I guess
I'd put it this way - are we in our cities any different from the first
beaver that succeeded in damming up a big creek and building a large
family of beaver dens there?  I think artificial again implies
unnatural; I'd say for argument's sake that it's just growing pains as
we naturally progress, and that it's actually more "unnatural" to try
and regress - even temporarily - to that which we are obviously more
comfortable in [due to "x" times more years of doing that than living in
cities] . . . again, I throw all this out to chew on, for I have the
same "deep" desires to get back to my dirty, earthy roots, too! 

thru-thinker

Shane Steinkamp wrote:
> 
> > Shane's points are good ones - even fundamental
> > ones - but part of me cannot fully agree.
> 
> Where's that part?  I'll straighten it out for you...  :0)
> 
> > Why is it that we label all of the things that mankind
> > [and womankind] have produced as "unnatural?"
> 
> That's not my contention at all...  I fear I have
> communicated poorly...
> 
> > Why is it that the things human beings have created for
> > housing, transport, etc. are considered "unnatural
> > perversions" while the beaver's dam, the eagle's nest, and
> > the mud dauber's home are all considered miraculous,
> > perfect evidence of the natural order?  Are we
> > not natural, too?
> 
> I do not mean to imply that man is unnatural.  On the
> contrary, man IS an animal - and it is the failure to
> recognize this fact that gets some people into trouble.  As
> an animal, man must also have a natural habitat.  Note that
> there is a difference between man's natural habitat and the
> 'natural environment'.  A subtle difference, but one does
> exist.  Think about it.  Antarctica is full of natural
> environment, but no natural habitat for man.  Man's natural
> habitat is the place in nature where he belongs.  That
> includes the food chain.  (If you don't think man is in the
> food chain, just remember that without good embalming, the
> worms get us all in the end...)
> 
> Man, by his natural tendency to form social groups, has been
> able to take the social group to its highest form - the
> CITY.  Due to the concentration of resources, however,
> cities isolate natural man from his natural habitat.  He has
> created an artificial habitat that he has not yet adapted
> to.
> 
> This artificial habitat arose quite suddenly in historical
> terms, and all of our instincts are still geared toward the
> 'natural' environment world rather than our 'artificial'
> constructed environments.  It will take quite a long time,
> but eventually we will adapt to this new environment and
> 
> This artificial habitat - the city - is not Unnatural.  In
> fact it is the natural extension of natural desires as
> allowed by technology.  However, the city IS artificial, and
> it DOES isolate man in a constructed environment.  If the
> environment were constructed in such a way as to mimic the
> instinctual expectation of man's natural environment then
> man would probably be much happier generally.
> 
> Look at zoos.  When I was a kid, Audubon Zoo here in New
> Orleans was HORRID.  Animals locked in steel cages that were
> far too small for them.  This was bad for the animals, and
> rather depressing.  Today, Audubon is the second best zoo in
> the country.  The model?  Reconstruct the natural habitat of
> the animal on display, and give it lots of room in that
> environment.  Is man any different?  What's better?  The
> office cubicle by the hall, or the cubicle by the window?
> The closer we are to our natural habitat - or at least the
> illusion of our natural habitat - the happier we are.
> Witness the many plants in office buildings...
> 
> > However, I do not miss the strains of being a hunter-
> > gatherer; dying at age 35; never getting to see further
> > than 20 miles from where I was born; dying (or
> > being killed) before the age of 10 if my vision
> > sucked; etc.
> 
> I am not a proponent of regression either.  We do often
> forget that just 100 years ago people routinely died from
> things that are considered minor today.
> 
> > Who knows what the answers are, but a significant part of
> > my brain rejects the implicit guilt complex in the
> > labeling of my attraction to walking in the woods
> > as the "purer" or "more natural" part of my life,
> > thus inherently leaving my wife, my job, my kids, my
> family
> > as relegated to some "unnatural" place that I reluctantly
> > plod back to!
> 
> Your life is not unnatural.  Nor is your family.  Nor is
> mine.  Our centralization of resources in cities and
> suburbs, however, disconnects us from our natural habitat.
> 
> Does this do any better, or am I just digging myself a hole?
> 
> If you don't think this is trail related, it really is: It's
> the REASON for trails in the first place.  Mr. M said as
> much in his article.  Not that I want to start THAT thread
> again...
> 
> Shane
> 
> _______________________________________________
> >From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> 
> Stay on topic!