mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It is a matter of degree in the end as there are no objective standards for this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is a House the Same As a Lake?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
It is a matter of degree in the end as there are no objective standards for this.
Some homebuilding methods are more or less disruptive of natural cycles and flows. When humans learn to more routinely construct their homes in ways that do not create biotic deserts, they will be worthy of that consideration IMO.
I've been to a couple different places around the world where I've gotten to see urban design and household design that was more integrated into the landscape instead of in defiance of it. Some really good examples of this are traditional Japanese architecture. The walls are... well... kind of not. You can just remove them. Sliding screens that let in the flow of the air everywhere. With surrounding landscapes that are still ecosystems serving needs other than just those of humans. It is beautiful.
It is worth noting that this kind of human home design tends to happen in places where humans belong for lack of a better way of putting it. That is, the humans could survive there perfectly well without building houses at all because the weather and climate there is agreeable to human flourishing. Anywhere a human decides to live that does not support their belonging, humans have to build structures that keep nature out and away. Or they have to wear clothes. Something that lets their fragile forms survive in a place they do not belong, so to speak. Carving out a place of belonging in a place one does not belong can be done in a more or less respectful way to the surrounding landscape. Indigenous communities for the most part do it in a way that synergizes with the landscape. Then we have the stupidity that is, say, the American Southwest where humans plant... lawn grass... in a desert.
I only asked you a question. The fact that you’ve responded twice but still haven’t answered the question is telling.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes, But the end of that one is to reduce humans back to hunter gather lifestyle. The problem is that if you want to do that fast you end up killing people, because we can't be that many living like that compared to now. So I get what you are saying, but even that has a limit. E.g. you vouldn't build the parts in a computer without having very speicalized houses to do so.
Setting aside the interesting choice of words with "reduce" there - this isn't the case. Living together with the flows of the gods does not mean returning to hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Agriculture can (and was and is) easily be part of this. Hell, production of consumer goods can even easily be part of this. The key is to follow are more indigenous mindset like described in Dr. Kimmer's book where I recently posted up an excerpt here, so I'll just refer back to that: Ecological Personhood (debate)
The problem is specific economic systems and ways of life that are profoundly greedy and take, take, take without giving back. It's not hard to imagine human homes being designed in ways that actually respect the surrounding ecosystems in which they exist. It's being done, already. Green roofs. Urban wetlands to catch stormwater runoff. Permeable pavement. Native landscaping and getting rid of biotic lawn deserts. Programs like LEED for building design. Permaculture instead of industrial agriculture. And on and on...
Your question is invalid
Because creatures who live in a lake can't live in their lake without "obtaining food from an external source"
The eco-system of a lake is a part of a wider eco-system
When I was a kid I used to feed bread to the ducks and geese at a lake (I now know you are not supposed to feed birds bread)
Those geese who lived in the lake obtained food from an external source - I gave it them myself
Which means that lake they lived in (and all other lakes) are the same as houses, in certain respects
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Actually, I lived in Japan and saw the houses that you describe as well. I lived between Yokohama and Tokyo, so it was pretty centrally located. But it was bitter cold in the winters there, with lots of snow. And the people definitely needed to wear clothes. Oh, and those houses were considered to be (rightly so) very poorly insulated and out of date. They are beautiful though.
I just got back from visiting relatives in Seoul, Korea where they often still sleep on the floor! No way.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The first thing that popped into my head is that while there are similarities between a house and a lake, there are also many differences. For instance, one relies on basically oxygen and the other relies on basically carbon dioxide. Or something like that.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The first thing that popped into my head is that while there are similarities between a house and a lake, there are also many differences. For instance, one relies on basically oxygen and the other relies on basically carbon dioxide. Or something like that.
I think this is an excellent question. Would that I had an excellent answer to equal it.
Just some thoughts then.
We differentiate them, so there are differences that define one from the other for us. These differences and definitions are often contextual
A house is an artificial construct intended to provide a stable internal environment at the exclusion or minimization of the external environment. Where external inputs are required, systems have been developed to allow controlled entry and exit of those inputs. Plumbing, wiring, gas lines, grocery bags all provide external inputs to maintain the controlled environment of a house.
A house is intended to support the maintenance and health of only one or a very few species.
A lake is a large body of water (fresh or less often not) surrounded by land on all sides with inflow of water from external sources and outflow to external locations. They can be natural, as in many of the lakes of Minnesota or the Great Lakes, for instance. They can be artificial like Lake Mead or the Salton Sea.
Often they promote the health and maintenance of numerous species, both within and outside of the lake.
Proviso: The argument over the natural or artificial origin or nature of a thing is an argument for an independent thread and I don't want diversionary discussion to disrupt the thread.
Both require external inputs.
Both are part of the ecosystem.
Both impact their environments and this impact varies with size in dimension and number.
Regarding the environment, the difference is in size of the impact. A single house likely has a minimal impact on the local environment, but a single lake can have a much wider impact on the local environment. In some cases, altering the environment in ways that promote ecological diversity and productivity. A thing that a house is intended to reduce.
But, when there are lots of houses in a single location (a lake of houses), then the impact of the houses increases to that of a lake. Even if the direction, scope and results may differ.
I don't know if I have an answer to the question. Just some thoughts.
Only because answering it honestly fails your argument.
So the geese would not have survived had you not given them that bread?
Is this how it works at your house? Do people just randomly show up with pizza and sandwiches?
Wild animals need all the help they can get to survive the winter months
Every little bit helps
I sometimes order a shop from a supermarket (have just made such an order a few minutes ago...) and a guy in a van brings bags of shopping to my house
And sometimes I order a pizza or a curry, which some dude brings to my house in a car
So not randomly, no
But yes, people do show up with food
Just like how things from outside a lake feed into the food-chain of a lake
As far as my body is concerned it such food magically appears and gets shoved into it by my mind, just how the mind that oversees the geese in a lake brings bread to the geese
With a regular supply of water to replenish the lake, sunlight and oxygen, a lake can maintain a significant ecosystem by virtue of its existence in a sense. Where the producers, plants for instance, convert the sunlight to biomass and oxygen for other species like fish and beavers to exploit. The lake would provide water and nutrients for grass, herbs and trees in the local area that would further benefit terrestrial species.
A house is only intended to do that for few, select species.
With exceptions, a lake promotes species diversity and houses do not.
You do raise a good point about ecosystems within larger ecosystems each impacting each other.
Perhaps if we viewed our own home construction and population expanse with a thought to those impacts, the negative impact could be better managed and even reduced. Some try.
There seem to be some very interesting ideas and points raised on here.
I like questions like the one of OP, because they stimulate thinking, different ideas and the question of our own understanding of things.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Well, words have meanings. Yes, language changes over time but in the 21st century, "house" and "lake" mean two different things. I mean, there are similarities but there are also differences.
Here's what Wiki says about the two:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Here's what Wiki says about the two:
House - Wikipedia
Lake - Wikipedia
Well said. You really sold me at the end by mentioning the American Southwestern desert, where people plant lawn grass and import other plants which are not indigenous to this region. And the consequences are severe, with water depletion being a major issue across the entire West.
I might suggest that it's not necessarily "unnatural" what humans do, such as building a house to keep nature out, especially if they're in a climate where they can't survive without doing that. Humans have had to figure out ways to adapt and survive to propagate our species - a natural process. So, we're a clever species, but from what I can gather, we got too dang smart for our own good, while being very recklessly short-sighted about what we've been doing. And there's far too many of us, too.
It should be mentioned that much of what humans have done, frankly, is because nature is often indifferent and harsh and not always all that "beautiful." We use pesticides because we don't like having our crops infested with bugs. We live in houses to protect us from the harsh elements of nature. Nature also provides us with viruses and bacteria which can cause disease and sickness, which we still continue to struggle with. Humans don't like this, so we have had to find ways to fight various natural processes.
However, having said that, I would agree that humans need to be responsible and thoughtful about the overall ecosystem and what we're doing to the Earth. We can't keep going full tilt like this. One example might be urban sprawl, where human settlements expand further and further into more rural and wooded areas. Ironically, it was because urban-dwellers correctly saw that city life was unhealthy, polluted, with crime and social rot caused by humans - and they wanted to move out to more idyllic conditions closer to nature - while still enjoying the advantages and opportunities of living in a large metropolitan area. A lot of people want to live in houses out in the country, with good scenery and nature all around them, while being a part of the process which slowly erodes the nature they came to enjoy. If some people like that, then others will like it, and under our current economic system, investors will buy up land, subdivide it, and create an entire housing tract where there was once wilderness.
In other words, the "nature" of humans will need some adjustments in order to correct this situation.
No they don't? Unless they are stray domesticates. Those birds and weasels, and badgers you see in the winter are perfectly warm and need no assistance or food.
It makes their life easier if you feed them
10 calories from a lump of bread is 10 less calories they need to scavenge from wherever
No it doesn't. You're making their life worse by creating dependency on you. Among other ills.
Winter Wildlife Habitat – How To Help Animals In Winter
Getting through a long, cold winter can be tough for wildlife. It’s only natural to want to help these creatures with winter survival. However, you need to first be sure your “help” isn’t doing more harm than good. To learn more about helping wildlife overwinter, click here.
www.gardeningknowhow.com
"feeding wildlife in winter, including deer, is actually harmful. Wildlife winter survival is vital; yet it’s natural for smaller, weaker animals to die during the winter months. Attracting large groups to one area increases the risk that diseases will spread or makes the animals more prone to be hit by cars. Feeding also invites cougars, coyotes, and other predators to your neighborhood."
Edit: https://extension.msstate.edu/news/.../feeding-wildlife-winter-not-really-good-idea
The birds that I give bird-feed to all seem pretty keen to eat it all up
I call it urbanisation
Many species are in decline, such as starlings. Feeding them helps reverse their decline and increase their numbers
Before anyone fed them there were way more such birds, they had larger populations before anyone fed them anything, so it's not as if feeding them artificially inflates their population
There are no such beasts where I live so that's not an issue for me