Philosophical Question :::

[Hooked]

Do you believe it's true that the further from nature we are, the worse off we are and that the closer to nature we are, the better off we are?

[Hooked]

Do you believe it's true that the further from nature we are, the worse off we are and that the closer to nature we are, the better off we are?

[Nudony]

That's what eastern religions and philosophies (notably Buddhism and Taoism), native americans and environmental science have been saying for years, if not centuries.

The problem? Man's insane drive for "progress", and constantly growing demand for material wealth.

The probable end result? Watch either "The Matrix" or the "Road Warrior" trilogy at your convenience.

[hm0504]

Excellent question. And indeed, I might say it is not only philosophical but extremely practical as well.

Personally, I find I feel the most spiritual and most connected with God when I am out in nature. Intellectually, it seems self-evident to me that God created the Universe (eg. the natural world) and designed it and us to live accordingly. I certainly do not mind the comforts, benefits, and joys of man-made technology (that is indeed what I do for a living), but I never make the jump into assuming that man is somehow separate and independent from nature.

Frankly, I am astounded, amazed, and deeply concerned when I see so much of society arrogantly thinking that nature has nothing to do with our well-being and is simply a resource to be consumed ad infinitum. Of course, the ultimate insult is to be considered as anti-God because one deeply values the natural world.

[luvnaturism]

It's a mixed bag. Certainly too much striving after possessions degrades the quality of life.

On the other hand, we've been to many places where the people do live close to nature. In the best of cultures you find strong family ties, strong sense of community, and non-existent crime rate. In others you find a high rate of alcoholism, fractured families, and extremely high crime rate. None of them have a standard of living that most people from the developed countries would be willing to accept.

Maybe the better question would be how can we best seek, find, and nurture our own best nature?

[namedun]

As those smart sciency people say we have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and those smart anthropology people say that we've only been living further and further from nature for about the past ten thousand or so, I'd say that on evolutionary terms, we should still be living in nature.

[namedun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The probable end result? Watch either "The Matrix" or the "Road Warrior" trilogy at your convenience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Add the Day After Tommorow to that list....and just for fun, Planet of the Apes as well.

[Bob S.]

Well, it depends on how you mean. There are many levels of living.

Geographically. Well certainly the pollutants are most concentrated in the urban areas, which are usually farthest away from natural surroundings. Not only that, but research has shown that being able to see greenery such as trees and grass, posibly also waterfront scenes as well, reduces stress in people. On the other hand, living in urban areas tends to allow for people to be able to incorporate more exercise, especially walking, into their daily schedule and traffic woes make it much more preactical.

Spiritually. The more you can free your mind from the stresses of everyday life, the more you can allow for your own religion to overtake you.

Technologically. Technology has allowed man to live decades longer than he has in generations past. It has cured diseases, provided treatment for others, and allowed for more people to be fed on less land.

All advances, however, usually came from natural remedies already known.

So to answer your question, yes and no. We need to remember our natural roots every once in a while. But relying on just nature to take care of us is very unwise.

Bob S.

[Unwired]

Short answer: yes. But human beings are amazingly adaptable, and to varying extents capable of taking control of their surroundings for their own well-being. It all depends on individual circumstances.

I also agree with much of what Bob S. has posted, so I'll just say "well said" and stop here. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Unwired, unfazed by modern life and its trappings

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Technologically. Technology has allowed man to live decades longer than he has in generations past. It has cured diseases, provided treatment for others, and allowed for more people to be fed on less land.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point. While the answer would vary for each and every individual, when you look at populations as whole the life expectancy is much shorter among those living closest to nature.

[jon71]

With our minds we shape our environment. I consider it an individual thing.

[Dolby]

An interesting question. I think that overall we have moved far away from nature, to the extent that we don't know where our food comes from, or what the impact we have on our environment on a daily basis. In general, we don't interact with nature as closely as even our grandparents did.

Having said that, I don't think that I would want to give up technology. I wouldn't want to live in a place without electricity, or running water, or medicine, etc. And I think it's a mistake to think we have to have one or the other. We can have technology without destroying the planet. All too often it is presented that we have to chose one or the other, in order to justify some of those industries that are causing the most damage.

[krcNY]

It seems at work/home with all the technology we are stressed and always running.

When we take the time to go camping, or tend to gardens, and enjoy the outdoor activities. Our stresses seem to lighten. I feel much better being outdoors.

I do believe there should be a happy medium with how close to nature you want to be. I feel if people are closer to nature they are more accepting of the things they cannot change. They seem more open, when meeting people and relaxed.

[Jason Lee]

further from nature = clothed indoors.

closer to nature = nude outdoors.

[barbararuth]

I have read that scientific studies have shown the release of the brain chemical, serotonin under certain circumstances. Serotonin is the chemical that makes you feel good, more at ease.. establishing an emotional comfort zone. Serotonin (I believe) is released with laughter, exercise, listening to music and many other activities. I believe that communing with nature also fits under the benefits of serotinin release.. therefore, to answer the original question.. I believe we definitely are better off. I would not be surprised if serotinin is released while relaxing nude as well!

[Ewan M]

When I lie in the grass naked and feel the ground beneath me I feel freer and as if I am part of the land.

I have the feeling that nature will never harm me.

It must be the Celt in me.

In the John Boorman film Excalibur, Merlin I think said that the land and people are one. I guess we have just forgotten it and are falling out of grace with it.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Exposure to sunshine elevates serotonin levels. It is a retina, to the brain, to the body kind of cascade. The lack of Serotonin is associated with depression. So, literally, sunshine and spending time outdoors helps us feel better. What am I doing sitting here....

[krcNY]

I still think we are Solar Powered. We need to get out into the sunshine and need at least 7 hours a day, preferrable 12 hrs or more.

[florida-david]

yes, man will eventually kill the earth, or the earth will kill man. Maybe we should be listening to the earth, i would say it is not too happy with humans...

[sliver]

Hooked; An interesting question. My personal take on this is that I feel better about myself and am more relaxed when nude.
I discovered that I did much better with my studies when all was silent and I was nude. Hence, high school was an academic so-so and college was enjoyable.
Now I take time off from work to enjoy nude recreation and spend as much time nude at home as possible. And I'm much happier for it.

[Bob S.]

"man will eventually kill the earth, or the earth will kill man"

fl-david, I find it arrogant to believe that man can "break" the Earth. When it comes down to it, Mama Nature will win in a knockout. Mankind cannot be as harsh on the Earth as nature has been. The Earth has seen its share of huge disasters from meteors to violent volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes/tropical cyclones, etc.

There have been many mass extinctions throughout the history of Earth, most happening before we got here.

The Earth is currently in flux. Natural global warming due to the current interglacial period (which will lead to another ice age in about 1,000-2,000 years). Our magentic field is shifting. This happens every few millenia or so. That means the protection of our magnetic field around Earth is weakening somewhat, allowing more radiation in. The Atlantic basin is in its major hurricane cycle, which will last for another 20-40 years.

Those are just a few events going on that man cannot control or cause.

There are two ways to look at the relationshop between man and Earth. My way is that we are Earth's residents. The other way is that Earth is our planet. The latter puts too much imprtance on us, the former puts us in our place as just another race of beings, at the mercy of nature.

We can only do so much to the Earth until she starts to fight back. Make no mistake about it, she will win. And untimately, Father Sun will win out.

Bob S.

[Ren]

Answering this in a vacuum, the answer is yes.

To say man has not helped cause some of the "natural" disasters and trends is naive, and while there is scientific evidence to point out that what Bob S. says is true, to say it is only a natural phenomenon ignores the rest of the scientific evidence that shows that our emissions into the atmosphere are helping to bring along global warming as well.

To say that some cultures that live close to the earth exhibit alcoholism is to ignore that the alcohol was introduced into certain near-to-earth cultures in this country and the misery of being shunted to small plots of land with no opportunities in the "Land of Opportunity" is another short-sighted statement.

So, let's answer in the vacuum. If we are mindful of nature and that which is around us, we will be better off. If we are not, then the planet will do its best to expel that which is hurting it and we will not be better off. We wound the planet with pollution, development, and bombs. The Earth is resilient, but not indestructable. The more we remember that, the more stability we will likely have, and the more nature, true nature, will be able to take its course, whatever it might be.

[hm0504]

I do not think the question should be framed as technology vs. nature. Personally, I love technology and I love nature. Indeed, I find many in high-tech are also avid enthusiasts for the great outdoors.

Unfortunately, not everyone realizes that human technology can create a fragile, artificial, pseudo-environment. The danger is that the way we live and think is now more influenced by our human technology than the greater God-designed world. And that can only lead us into trouble.

[Ren]

"God" didn't design the world.

[Bob S.]

Ren:"We wound the planet with pollution, development, and bombs."

The Earth can create more pollution (greenhouse gases) in a single volcanic eruption than all of the countries create in a year. Kilauea in Hawaii releases 2,000 metric tons of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide per day.

Development is doing some damage to the ecosystem by taking away natural habitats from certain species of animal. The depletion of wetlands is dangerous as they control flooding in an area and can somewhat lessen the impact of a hurricane with barrier islands and not building so close to the water's edge.

I don't know how you think bombs are damaging to the environment. Nuclear bombs have radiation, but if you are simply talking about craters and the heat, Mama Nature has bombs called earthquakes, volcanos, and meteorites. In fact, where I live is on the rim of an ancient crater. The Earth is pockmarked with such craters.

Albinus:"I do not think the question should be framed as technology vs. nature."

Neither do I, Albinus. Both have their place and both can help you in proper balance.

Bob S.

[Ren]

In my quote, I didn't say we hurt the environment. I say we "wound the planet." There's a big difference. See a lot of people want to ascribe existence to a God-designer, I prefer the science and see Earth as a valuable being in our lives. If people believe in the God-designer and hold the "creation" up to a high level, they would understand that what the Earth creates of its own volition is as it should be (by "design" let's say) and what we do to it is injurious to what it is "designed" to do. Therefore, the planet has every right to release natural greenhouse gases and we do not have the right to add to it with our pollution. We simply do not have that right, whether we believe in a bogus theory of how the Earth came about or the scientific explanation of what the Earth is.

I'm actually quite spiritual, but feel that putting my feelings onto a "God" is hubristic, as it would be for any human being. But in the spirit of believing in something more than me, I think, karmically speaking, that we are truly "injuring" the Earth when we bomb it. Just 'cause bomb craters exist, doesn't make it right.

As for development, we can't tame nature and we don't own the planet. The secondmost worst thing the founders did (aside from allowing slavery) is that they believed too much in the rights to own property, and that has caused us to erode nature's trust. I think these hurricanes are the Earth's way of belching, saying that something's not right and that things had better change before it gets too sick and dies.

And how does it die? Via pollution, development, and the abuse of its surface and below by bombing.

Surely those who believe in science and/or the creation myth can agree to that. This land isn't our land and it never will be. Unfortunately, we humans rarely learn that and are killing out lifeblood.

[KetchumMaine]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
Do you believe it's true that the further from nature we are, the worse off we are and that the closer to nature we are, the better off we are? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ayuh

[Naked_Justin]

At this point, I do not believe we have the ability to "destroy the earth."
We may be able to destroy vast numbers of creatures that inhabit the earth, but the earth it self will go on, whether or not we are here.

If we do something that drastically changes the landscape (intentionally or unintentionally), the earth won't care.
Does the earth care that we create mudslides some where?
Nope.
People losing million dollar homes care, but the earth doesn't.

We can lessen our ability to live on this earth, but we can't destroy the earth itself.

Justin

[Naked_Justin]

I agree that this is not a Technology vs. Nature argument.

When my allergies act up, I want nothing to do with nature and everything to do with the medicine that keeps me from sneezing my brains out (what I have left).

When the sun is shining and temperature is warm and hundreds of nude people out out have fun together...Go Nature!!!

When there's a blizzard and the snow is moving sideways...eh, no so much.

Without technology, I would be dead.

If I had to actually LIVE off the land, and not have technology, I'm not sure I'd be so happy with nature.

Sometimes nature can be a huge pain in the butt.


Like pretty much everything else, I think it's about balance.

[l2ltlarry]

I saw a movie on VHS at Big Lots last week and on the sleeve, it talked about the year 2017 and was about mankind having "destroyed" the earth. The storyline was about a natural disaster but I can't remember exactly what. When I went back to get the movie it was gone. Searching Amazon.com, imdb, & Google did not turn up what the name of it was. Does anyone know?

[OZJames]

The world is at a TURNING point. Yes at this point I believe that if we move further away from nature we will be worse off because almost EVERY TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT has an environmental cost. The turning point is that unless we make immediate moves to improve the environment the world AS WE KNOW IT will end.

The atmoshpere will become more poisened, global warming will cause climate change and these will start to happen at an accelerating rate.

The environmental costs of everything we do must be accounted for. If we all start to get used to less electricity use, less heating and cooling, smaller leaner cars, less environmentally unfriendly "labour saving devices, less clothes, WE (and our descendants) WILL BE BETTER OFF

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif