By nature in this case what I assume you mean is the biosphere. What I mean by nature includes psychology, sociology, political science, etc. I do not believe that humans have a primary duty towards the biosphere, that is not what I mean when I say “human systems fit nature into a box”. Humans try to fit themselves into boxes. They are “homo economicus” completely devoid of feeling or passion, purely game theoretic rational actors. Or humans are primitive communists forced into a modern world, altruists of the highest degree except under capitalism. Or humans are tabula rasa, whatever they are socialized to be they become, or whatever material conditions force them to be they become. Or humans are children of god, or one with nature, or whatever. None of these things are true, yet we build systems assuming they are. They each only approach some truth, and then we watch as contradictions emerge and destroy one formalism of nature via its own absurdity.
I don’t see psychology, sociology etc. as something separate to nature. They are part it of it, because they are aspects of us humans, and we are part of nature.
None of these things are true, yet we build systems assuming they are.
Agreed. Or perhaps I’d say some of us build systems using those unrealistic abstractions as excuses for oppression and extractivism.
I don’t think fact that those approaches have been dominant for centuries (millenia in a few locations) means that they are the only approach. It seems that, given we have the ability to reflect on those and realise how unrealistic they are, now would be a good time to try building systems that are NOT based on unrealistic assumptions.
And yes, I realise we’ll never have a perfect understanding of our place in the world, and there will always be flawed assumptions of varying degrees of importance underlying our world view. But we can absolutely do better, and a perfect place to start would be to avoid the assumptions that we’ve just spent a long time testing and found to be untrue.
I don’t see psychology, sociology etc. as something separate to nature.
Yes that’s what I said. Re separating “nature” and “biosphere”
unrealistic abstractions as excuses for oppression and extractivism.
The formalization of things into oppression and extractivist categories is also a system of morals and also contains absurdities. Of course we need to extract food from our environment, and of course we need to oppress oppressors, just for example.
By nature in this case what I assume you mean is the biosphere. What I mean by nature includes psychology, sociology, political science, etc. I do not believe that humans have a primary duty towards the biosphere, that is not what I mean when I say “human systems fit nature into a box”. Humans try to fit themselves into boxes. They are “homo economicus” completely devoid of feeling or passion, purely game theoretic rational actors. Or humans are primitive communists forced into a modern world, altruists of the highest degree except under capitalism. Or humans are tabula rasa, whatever they are socialized to be they become, or whatever material conditions force them to be they become. Or humans are children of god, or one with nature, or whatever. None of these things are true, yet we build systems assuming they are. They each only approach some truth, and then we watch as contradictions emerge and destroy one formalism of nature via its own absurdity.
I don’t see psychology, sociology etc. as something separate to nature. They are part it of it, because they are aspects of us humans, and we are part of nature.
Agreed. Or perhaps I’d say some of us build systems using those unrealistic abstractions as excuses for oppression and extractivism.
I don’t think fact that those approaches have been dominant for centuries (millenia in a few locations) means that they are the only approach. It seems that, given we have the ability to reflect on those and realise how unrealistic they are, now would be a good time to try building systems that are NOT based on unrealistic assumptions.
And yes, I realise we’ll never have a perfect understanding of our place in the world, and there will always be flawed assumptions of varying degrees of importance underlying our world view. But we can absolutely do better, and a perfect place to start would be to avoid the assumptions that we’ve just spent a long time testing and found to be untrue.
Yes that’s what I said. Re separating “nature” and “biosphere”
The formalization of things into oppression and extractivist categories is also a system of morals and also contains absurdities. Of course we need to extract food from our environment, and of course we need to oppress oppressors, just for example.