The article by Paul Kingsnorth and the video from Suzanne Simard talk about how forests are alive. Kingsnorth talks about how Europeans look at nature as resources that need to be utilized and Simard talks about how cutting down trees are having negative effects on forests.
Kingsnorth states that seeing the natural world as "inanimate" is scientific, but Simard makes it clear that this isn't necessarily true in her speech. She has done research in forests, finding that trees interact with each other; sharing nutrients and information to help each other live. Not all species of trees interact and the trees seem to prioritize other trees of the same type (pine trees send more nutrients to other pine trees, for example). And cutting down what Simard calls the "mother trees" is ultimately what's doing the forests in. She says that if too many mother trees are cut down, then the smaller trees do not have a chance to get what they need to survive.
Are forests, and other plant life inanimate? If so, why? And how do you explain Simard's findings if you think nature is inanimate? Is there a way to continue cutting trees down and using nature and preserve it at the same time?
I don't think plants are inanimate at all. They simply don't have the same level of sentience that we have as humans. They are certainly alive, though. Trees spread their roots into a vast underground network in order to siphon nutrients from the soil. Plants like venus fly traps "hunt" by snapping their jaws shut when an insect lands in them. Plants aren't just some lifeless thing to be exploited, even though we certainly do exploit them for our own benefit.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a way to cut trees down and still preserve nature, I'm not sure there's a good solution other than cutting back how much we cut down. Replanting might be a possible solution, but I don't think we can replant enough to make up for the vast amount of wood we consume.