Design for vulnerable landscapes



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Design for vulnerable landscapes: A response to Professor John Sutton

I have heard Professor Sutton give a lecture in London to a group of young ecologists and I have found it absolutely compelling. You can find it here.

Professor Sutton said many things in that lecture that I would like to pick up on and respond to. He said that the idea that nature is always in the state of being under stress is a myth. He stated that the way that we are treating the world around us is a myth. He said that the way we are changing the world around us is a myth. He said that nature is not static. He stated that the way that we are treating each other is a myth. He said that the way that we are changing each other is a myth.

Of all these things I agree with most, but the one that I don’t agree with is the ‘state of being’ bit. I think that this is just an over-simplification and that nature is far more complicated than that. You can get a lot of information from studying biology (as shown in Sutton’s lecture). It is certainly true that we don’t know everything and that the complexity is simply unfathomable. As the speaker said, “It would take a book the size of the Bible to understand it.” But to take it one step further, and to believe that nature is under stress seems to ignore the fact that we are also a part of it. And to believe that nature is under stress seems to ignore the fact that we can learn, that we can study it, and that we can act on what we learn. We can certainly make mistakes, but we can also learn from them and try to avoid them.

In all cases I have quoted I agree with what he said. However, he did go too far in one of them.In that one I would have to agree with him more than I do.

It was about a minute and a half into the lecture when it happened. The speaker said that he had never been able to take a picture of the Earth that was so beautiful that he could not take his eyes away from it. He said this as he was passing a shot of the Earth out the airplane window. I agreed with this statement when I was just thinking about the Earth in my own life. But as the rest of the lecture went by, I started to think about what the speaker was saying in a broader sense. It is certainly true that the Earth is beautiful and that sometimes it is hard to take my eyes away from it. However, the Earth is certainly not as beautiful as the speaker thought it was. To use a very simple analogy, you look at a picture of your mother or grandmother and you say how beautiful she is, but that is not because you can take your eyes away from the picture. It is because the picture is very small and you can see every detail of what is in the picture. However, when you look out the airplane window or look at the surface of the Moon or Mars, it is difficult to see every detail.

I think this is a very useful point to bring up in the discussion of what kind of information we get and how to tell that information apart.

The Earth is no more beautiful than the information you find on the surface of a CD-R. You can certainly make the case that it is possible to take a picture of the Earth that is so beautiful that it is hard to look away from it. Yet, a lot of people look away because it seems that the only way to see the whole of the Earth is to look at an image of the whole Earth. You also have the case where people say that the Earth is beautiful but that it is the same as looking at a picture of it. And this is in fact what they say.

I don't think that this is too far off of what John and others have said on the blog recently.We look at pictures of the Earth, we have a certain appreciation for the beauty of our planet but the beauty of the Earth is the same as we would have if we took the same pictures from space.

I also think that this is one of the things that distinguishes the information that we get from the surface of a CD-R from the information that we get from Mars. You can learn a lot about Mars by looking at a picture of the surface of Mars but you can't do anything with the information that you get by looking at the picture. You have to go to Mars to find information.

Finally, I would like to add that the idea that the beauty of the Earth is something that we appreciate from the standpoint of what is inside of us is wrong. You do not enjoy the beauty of the Earth inside of you. That is just a fact.

The beauty of the Earth does not depend on whether you see it or whether you are inside of it or what it is doing. I don't think that beauty is a matter of perspective.

Monday, April 4, 2010

I recently came across an email from someone who commented that I had a strange idea about the purpose of life. He wanted to know what the purpose of life is and why we are here. I told him about the quote by St. Augustine about God creating the world. I told him that God put us on the Earth to experience the world, to discover more about ourselves and to love others.

There is a quote from Thomas Merton that I think of when I think about these things. Merton said, "The purpose of our lives is to be loved."

This is the purpose of life. Our lives are about trying to be loved. We live as though we are on a planet that is inhabited by others.

I also think that there is a time at which we have to leave the Earth, as Merton says. We are going to leave the Earth, for good. We are going to leave the Earth because we will die. When we die, we leave the Earth.

At the same time, we are going to leave the Earth when we die, and we are going to go to Heaven.Our lives are about trying to love others. The purpose of our lives is to try to be loved by others.

There is no life after death, but there is a time when we leave the Earth for good. There is a time when we leave the Earth, but there is no life after death. When we die, we don't go to Heaven. We go to death, as we leave the Earth. That is the story of our lives.

God put us on the Earth for a reason. It is not because the Earth is beautiful or interesting or good or bad. It is because it is about love. We are here because we have to be loved. And God does not love us, we are like that.

The purpose of our lives is to try to be loved. We are trying to love others, even when we are not doing well. And we cannot be really happy until we are loved.

When we are loved, we can love others. But if we are not loved, then we cannot love others. And then we are only happy when we are loving others.

I think we are on this planet because there are others on this planet. We are here to love and be loved, as Merton says. We are here to love others, and to have others love us.

If I am not loved, I cannot love others. I think there are two purposes to life. There is this purpose, of trying to be loved.

We are here because we have to be loved, and we are trying to be loved. The reason we are on this planet


Watch the video: VulnHub: Vulnerable by design. An Introducution


Comments:

  1. Duzilkree

    Yes, really. So it happens.

  2. Daigul

    I congratulate, the magnificent idea and it is timely

  3. Najora

    I think you are not right. Write in PM, we will discuss.



Write a message


Previous Article

How (Not) to Clean Up Woody Hurricane Debris

Next Article

Do fruits of pear not pear tree tolerate frost