I don’t know much about ecology, although I suppose I understand now that environmentalism would be the applied science and ecology the other kind, but I think now I’m going to try to read as much general science (theoretical, and not psychology), as general history, (^) since it has some benefits. Of course, scientists are not always good philosophers—although sometimes they’re quite good, although there’s often a dispute, of course, and one side tends to resort to ‘geologists are not good philosophers the way that marine biologists are’—but I don’t come here to cavil, you know.

(^) Or maybe I’ll just try to have general science keep up with general philosophy; I used to think for whatever preening reason that philosophy was more proper and important, because man is a master-piece, and the animals and plants are only our Edwardian servants, you know, (although gen phil is hardly the art of, I don’t know, making sure your whole life is a masterpiece necessarily, or even that you can take care of yourself—sometimes it’s not even the understanding of self or others, really, just a technical tradition of knowledge and its lore, right), but now I think that too much putting philosophy over science can and often is willfully putting yourself out of step with a scientific age (to the extent that it is intellectual at all), for the sake of preening that you and Bighouse Park have been left behind, you know. But on the other hand, I’ve probably invested too much energy into gen hist from childhood—and even in the intervening epochs when, for several different reasons at different times, (ideology, first, then practicality), I wouldn’t pick up a history book, the /problems arising from that mold of mind/—inner dramatization of problems as tyrants and wars, basically—stayed with me, so history will stay with me, you know. As a smallish child, before I got fully sucked into mannishness and European plantation, I was more into science, but at that stage I didn’t fully understand or appreciate science as something distinct from space opera, or whatever, or puns on the public broadcasting TV. So gen sci will never be to me what gen hist is—let alone all the other histories, like literary and religious and diverse ones—but, what are you gonna do. I won’t say it’s /worse than philosophy, dammit/, at least.

There are benefits. Science at its best can explore the changing world and the non-human element, something that many humanities are not so good at.

Not everything should be, Nero (The Great Tyrants Series), (to say nothing of the others)…. I kinda wanted a very short introduction for biology, but there doesn’t seem to be one, I guess that’s ‘too broad’, you know—I don’t know science well, but I read somewhere that apparently biology, chemistry, and physics are three of the major fields, though I don’t know it well enough for sure to know if that adds up to a sort of whole. I guess ecology can be kinda holistic though, even if the ecologist isn’t necessarily so.

But it’s fine; it’s good. It does feel like reading about eating, animals eating, in a kind of very VERY abstract way. Not practical, like a book about supermarkets and food, or applied, like the history and theory of organic food, but…. Farther out.

Much farther out. But not, The Great Tyrants, so, there’s a connection.

I’m trying to read more practical books now but there’s no need to lack balance, and anyway, showing you take an interest in a changing world and the non-human element, confers a benefit.

…. And it is teachable that animals in nature that identify their resources as abundant do not defend territory, but animals that define their resources as scarce, do. (I realize that the average scientist doesn’t define themself as being into prosperity, but still in a way it is the study of a sort of abundance, even though it is obviously a flow of abundance and not a static thing. And obviously it needs to be treated with the respect it deserves and freed from the consequences of our ‘not enough for me’, thinking.) “There is no warmth to be found, Among those afraid of losing their ground.” Ah, my ‘historical research’ 🧐😜

…. Scientist: A dance is a zero-sum game, because you have to choose where to stand on the floor.
Therapist: You feel like since you’re only inhabiting one body, having to choose one location on the dance floor makes it a zero-sum game.
Scientist: You think I’m wrong.
Therapist: Did I say that you were wrong?
Scientist: Yes, you did.
Therapist: I did not say that you were wrong.
Scientist: There! You did it again!
Therapist: /rolls her eyes/

…. Although (re: not Nero) like I guess Jaboury here and unlike a lot of the early industrial idealists (I read Tolstoy’s Resurrection, although he mentions books that aren’t novels), I’m not So disillusioned with people that I need to romanticize nature up my ass, you know (if you like). Like with the ants and the tree; they work together…. And they try to get their own damn needs met, you know. (It’s a modern romance novel; it’s sleazy 🤩).

So there are problems with non-human consciousness, Just Like there are problems with human consciousness, (I mean, I like Eckhart Tolle, but he’s never been a tree, you know, so he doesn’t know about trees—sometimes speculations are different from advice), and even though things work out in the end.

“They don’t work out in the end!”
Well, then it’s up to you, I guess. 🤖

…. It is good to exist.

…. The academic who feels separate (perhaps not Jaboury) feels threatened by applied and practical ecology, by cultural ecology, but really we need a way into a world where the non-human (natural) element isn’t ignored, you know. We need to get to the post-colonial worldview, and that includes both culture and science, since they’re both important. I mean, even just with the invasive species, it’s like we taught the animals to act like us (us Anglos), and…. It’s not a win, for many beings out there, you know.

…. Perhaps in the future, if we make it, we shall be able the manage the environment even better than preindustrial societies did, who with their imperfect knowledge could not know that they caused say, the megafauna extinctions. Of course, we’re not there yet; so far for all the good we’ve caused, we’re still essentially just plunging the earth into a transition experiment uncontrolled by human reason, and no flesh knows how it will end.

An infinite number of things can happen on Earth; she is a little infinity, but we must treat her with respect.

…. Science is usually concerned, on some level, with survival, and so is different from speculative philosophy; but ecology is not concerned with survival in any petty way.