This is one of those prime directive episodes

  • sodium_nitride [she/her, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    Cooperation between living things is as much a part of nature as conflict. Why then does it make sense for humans to “not interfere” in nature? It doesn’t make sense. It is one thing to pick sides between a predator and prey animal, but this was not that.

    • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      It is one thing to pick sides between a predator and prey animal, but this was not that.

      Eh, those “circling predators” mentioned in the article just lost out on a feast. I can understand the non-intervention philosophy. Intervening while filming nature docs is probably not sustainable.

    • Right? We are a part of nature and as per Marx very much have a hand in it, literally. And it has a hand in shaping us.

      The pseudoneutral “do not intervene” is some sort of liberalism surely. Like we could separate ourselves and just observe anything without influence, we can’t.

      I am sure the camera crew already impacts the behaviour of these creatures. Or the reason they are in this situation is downstream from human caused climate change somehow. Or whatever.

      It just sounds like another version of “neutrality” aka not responsible to me.

      • sodium_nitride [she/her, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        In one of marx’s writings, he explains that the bourgeoise love to ascribe supernatural creative ability to human labor, setting it and its products apart from nature.

        This allows them to maintain the illusion that wealth = hard-work, obscuring the fact that the bourgeoise’s monopolistic of nature is the source of its economic strength.