From natures point of view


How can it be that all the dogs around the hotlels by the sea are so peaceful?
They are quite many and most of them are without a necklace.
They seldom bark and I have never seem they fighting with eachother.
I don't think they have had any upbringing or training at all.
But they get food from the restaurants from time to time.

Maybe we have interpreted dogs in the wrong way. Maybe they know how to behave if we treat them well too. If we don't shout to them or harm them in other ways.

If we look at the planet from an animal view, we would have a different picture.
Of course they cannot have the whole picture, but it seems that neither can we.
If I read a Swedish newspaper, I can read about climate change at one page and about the new cars or trips to Thailand at the next.
Is as af we don't dare to understand the situation.

Stephen Hawking speaks out though;
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344664

The greates dangers for us is nuclear weapons, climate change and new technology.
But he's sure of that the development can't be stopped.
Some time in future, he says, we can colonize others planets though, and save humankind.

But if we let nature have our eyes and brain for a while we would probably hear a load cry.
If we will create a disaster nature would be effected greatly too. Not only the animals that have learned to live with us as dogs, cats and certain doves.

Probably nature would be fresh again but that could take a very long time, maybe billions of years.

The religions, at last the scriptures in their canon, have not much to say about those thing, as technologi

They are, like science, anthropocentric.

I was attacked by a monkey some days ago. I was surprised, they use to hide away if they see me.
But not that one. Instead a I run away...
I don't think it's a good way for them to survive, it would probably be better for them if they could cooperate with humans as dogs do. As we now dominate the whole Earth.

But in the long run, if Hawkings is right, they would have a greate chance to survive as woolfs have...

I we could see that nature has a value in itself, not only as recreation areas for us, it would probably benefit us too.

We need the nature for new medicins and so on.
And the mangrove keeps us from floodings, as the forests do.

And so on

 Here, at Con Dao, the monkeys will survive as they live in a nature reservate. At least if they keep the distance too us...











Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more