Let's make nature even more natural by ideological-artificial means!

Skybird · 04-26-22, 09:48 AM

Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

The Greens want to do better than nature and replace old-fashioned biology with gender as the new life science. It is slow and deliberate, in other words conservative and unfashionable: nature. Germany's Greens are struggling with this.

Germans have their own relationship to nature. They see it as creation, something venerable and primordial that can be sensed rather than recognized. Nature reveals itself, even speaks - not to everyone, however, but only to the chosen ones, the Sunday children, to whom a kind fairy had placed a birthday present in the cradle. Only they know how to eavesdrop on nature's secrets, to find the blue flower and to get to the bottom of things in the solitude of the forest, the place of longing of romantic poetry. No one formulated this idea of nature more succinctly than a Frenchwoman, Madame de Staël, who wrote in her book "De l'Allemagne" that in order to know nature, a German must become one with it.

The traces of this emotional view of nature have not been lost to this day. Even a sworn empiricist like the zoologist Ernst Haeckel moved along them when he began his widely read book on the riddles of the world, published in 1899, with a rapturous quotation from Goethe and ended it with a tribute to the truth and beauty of undisguised, natural nature. The goddess of truth, it said there, "dwells in the temple of nature, in the green forest, on the blue sea, on the snow-covered mountain heights". The loving exploration of nature and its eternal laws, the observation of "the infinitely large starry world by means of the telescope and the infinitely small cellular world by means of the microscope" - this was the way to enjoy the delicious fruits from the tree of knowledge and the inestimable profit of a clear, unified world view.

Haeckel's nature crush did not prevent him from blowing the trumpet of progress with full cheeks. As a good Darwinist, he invited the reader to rise above his apish ancestors, to push evolution forward and to approach nature not always as an observer and connoisseur, but as a master, to open it up, to make it serviceable, to put it into value and whatever the common euphemisms are called. Instead of indulging in God's garden, man should work on it, develop it, cultivate it; what the Bible had already given him as a mission and profession.

Truth and beauty, knowledge and action, nature and environment coincided for Haeckel. Thus he became the founder of a new discipline, ecology. The artificial word, intended to remind man of his origins, originated with him. It recommended him to adapt, to show consideration, to become at home in nature.

But he has not done this for a long time, and not only since Haeckel's time. A species that pushes itself forward at the expense of all others and now populates the globe with more than eight billion specimens has left nature behind. It considers it its prerogative to make a killing on the riches of the earth, to exploit and exploit them, and that also means: to break with nature. Nature, however, knows how to defend itself and fights back.

How and with what consequences, the biologist Rachel Carson has collected the evidence in her epoch-making book "Silent Spring". Using songbirds as an example, she describes the dwindling of species, the desolation of the land, the loss of wealth, joy and imagination, and all that follows. "We are about to wipe out the foundations of English poetry," Aldous Huxley, the novelist, is said to have exclaimed in horror to his brother Julian, the biologist, after reading Carson's book. And Julian proved him right.

You don't have to be a poet to realize that the use of tons of environmental toxins is ruining not only the livelihoods of birds, our lovely singers, as they are then regularly called, but also those of humans; the biologist knows this too. He sees that nature is more than an environment for Homo sapiens, and knows from history how it deals with a species that imagines itself to be the crown of creation. For them, a human being counts for no more than a spider.

Germany's Greens have a hard time with this. The gap between their social instincts and their ecological conscience is causing them trouble, costing them credibility and splitting the party. The result is a lurching course on which members shimmy from one compromise to the next. To generate energy, they build solar cells over the meadows, fill the sea with wind turbines and cut wide swaths through the forest to transport the electricity from here to there.

The commuter allowance promotes driving, is a sin from an ecological point of view and an expensive nonsense from an economic point of view. But it is also a social acquis, which is why it is not only being maintained, but expanded, with the approval of the Greens. They feel torn about the leaf blower, the most stupid invention of the 20th century: Should they allow it to save street sweepers from having to bend down, or ban it to protect residents from noise and the air from stench?

Thoughts live slightly together, but things bump into each other hard in the room, this is also true for the Greens. They don't want to admit this, however, because they have set out to save the world: the refugees, the bats, the pack ice and the climate. Hence the shrill tone, which no one masters as well as they do. The Greens are right, after all, Niklas Luhmann mocked them, you just can't listen to them.

But they should not be called lovers of nature, because nature is slow and deliberate, i.e. conservative; and therefore unfashionable. This goes against the grain of the Greens, because if they want to be something and be called that, then modern. "Dare more progress," the simple slogan of the traffic light coalition, was after all also their program. No other party wants as unconditionally as they do to trim man to progress, to free him from the constraints of nature. And this, emancipation, requires not only breaking the chains of society, but also throwing off the shackles of nature, knocking out the dowry.

Progress wants the whole man. With this in mind, the Greens have sent a queer commissioner to the federal government, with the rank of state secretary even. He is supposed to teach people that nature was a bungler when it made bisexuality the driving force of evolution. The Greens want to do better, to leave nature behind and replace old-fashioned biology with genderism as the new science of life. People, even half children, should be allowed to freely choose their gender, their parents, their siblings and whatnot. They will then also choose green, and so everything fits together well.

If one holds it with the Greens, then there is a good and a bad nature. With dogs, fish, fir trees and so on she has done it right, there are two sexes, there nature can and should remain as it is. With the human being, however, it has done some things wrong. It has brought him into the world as a social creature, dependent on society, and thus made him dependent, dependent on the constraints of society, the source of all evil.

Therefore, society must be deconstructed, smashed and rebuilt from the ruins - along with it the old, misshapen, bisexually deformed human being. Man and woman, that's far too little for the Greens, the world is open, trans, bi, diverse and queer. If it is not, then it must be set up that way, and that is what the Greens are there for. The only question then remains: What should the new human being look like? Which pattern is valid, according to which plan will it be optimized?

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

What do i always say? "The Germans are hysterical romantics."

Edit: I get two different translations for the German word "Romantiker", depending on what translator I use: romanticist, and romantic. Which now is correct? And if both are possible, what subtelty is their difference?

Buddahaid · 04-26-22, 10:22 AM

Gender is not biological sex.

Skybird · 04-26-22, 10:51 AM

And I can breath underwater by simply assuming I am a fish.

Social models and theories that violate biological facts, make no sense. XX or XY chromosomes. Hormones. Metabolism. Physical traits. Gender "choice" not in congruency with these, make no sense.

60 gender categories to "choose" from, even switching back and forth between them at will? Bull.

Anyway, the linked article is about a bit more than just this.

Buddahaid · 04-26-22, 11:19 AM

Where is the biology in these genders? See 7.5 and 8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender...le%20connector.

Skybird · 04-26-22, 02:48 PM

^ Distraction.

Take away the physical preconditions of human's manifestation, consider the material precondition for every thought and every emotion, every metobolistic function and every hormon quantity in the bloodstream, every neuron firing and every perception of the senses "computed" by the brain, null and void and meaningless, and you end up with a state of things so free and cleaned of any identity that we have a name for it: "Death". We are in function what the matter defines us to be, we cannot be what our material preconditions do not enable us to be, we can not become more or anything different than what our genes set the limits and borders for within which any individual "interpretation"/manifestation of ours realises itself in interaction with the environment. Biological factors and variables precede the forming of mind and feeling. From Eros to Cosmos, from Cosmos to Logos. Only this way - not the other way around.

Still dont see it? Then put your head into a waterpool and try to breath water by imagining to be a fish.

Social roles are not genetics, and its genetics that decide our skin colour, eyes colour and hair colour and the many other biophysical variables defining us, our hormone state, our pyhsicla strengths and weaknesses, our vulenraiblity for deseases or special strong immunity to them. Without genes, we would not be anything. We would not even exist. You may see people with many "genders" around, that they can choose from and change as they want. I see people with many psychologial problems, and many different sexual tastes and fetishes, appetites and preferences.

The chemical basis of life is not arbitrarily selectable according to taste, vogue, or political demand. You want to change the identity of any lifeform? You have to change its genetical basis, its chemistry. And this is what can be measured in the lab. There comes a woman claiming she "identifies as a man"? I ask for her genetical profile and hormonal profile and such stuff. And this alone decides for me whether or not I take that claim serious. If the data is against it, I know she is having big mental and identity problems and needs therapy. And thats wha I would tell her. Even if she stomps her feet and insists she were a "he".

Le the boys be boys. Let the girls be girls. The one is not better or worse than the other. Let them be equal before the law.

But let both be DIFFERENT. Discrimination means only this, originally: to realise and accept the differences. Modern language has completely perverted this term. And hence, i insist on discriminating.

If one holds it with the Greens, then there is a good and a bad nature. With dogs, fish, fir trees and so on she has done it right, there are two sexes, there nature can and should remain as it is. With the human being, however, it has done some things wrong. It has brought him into the world as a social creature, dependent on society, and thus made him dependent, dependent on the constraints of society, the source of all evil.

Therefore, society must be deconstructed, smashed and rebuilt from the ruins - along with it the old, misshapen, bisexually deformed human being. Man and woman, that's far too little for the Greens, the world is open, trans, bi, diverse and queer. If it is not, then it must be set up that way.

Buddahaid · 04-26-22, 02:54 PM

It is you who does not get it. Why does the German language have four genders?

Skybird · 04-26-22, 03:34 PM

And now grammar... Has been ridden to death over here in Germany, namely by ultrafeminists.

And has practically not much to do with the artic le I quoted, have you realised that...? Genderism is NOT the focus of that article, yet you bring it up.

Of course you can do that, but I have made my point clear on it, and not for the first time. I dont buy all this language policing and social re-engineering crap. I am a bit old-fashioed, and stick with how nature has dersigned our heterosexual species that despoite all ideological furor still needs a male man and a female woman for natural reproduction. Any social designs ignoring this I cannto take serious, sorry - its a safee policy for acchieveing demographic decline and then civilizational and then biological extinction.

Im done with this part of the talk.

04-26-22, 09:48 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Let's make nature even more natural by ideological-artificial means! Neue Zürcher Zeitung: The Greens want to do better than nature and replace old-fashioned biology with gender as the new life science. It is slow and deliberate, in other words conservative and unfashionable: nature. Germany's Greens are struggling with this. Germans have their own relationship to nature. They see it as creation, something venerable and primordial that can be sensed rather than recognized. Nature reveals itself, even speaks - not to everyone, however, but only to the chosen ones, the Sunday children, to whom a kind fairy had placed a birthday present in the cradle. Only they know how to eavesdrop on nature's secrets, to find the blue flower and to get to the bottom of things in the solitude of the forest, the place of longing of romantic poetry. No one formulated this idea of nature more succinctly than a Frenchwoman, Madame de Staël, who wrote in her book "De l'Allemagne" that in order to know nature, a German must become one with it. The traces of this emotional view of nature have not been lost to this day. Even a sworn empiricist like the zoologist Ernst Haeckel moved along them when he began his widely read book on the riddles of the world, published in 1899, with a rapturous quotation from Goethe and ended it with a tribute to the truth and beauty of undisguised, natural nature. The goddess of truth, it said there, "dwells in the temple of nature, in the green forest, on the blue sea, on the snow-covered mountain heights". The loving exploration of nature and its eternal laws, the observation of "the infinitely large starry world by means of the telescope and the infinitely small cellular world by means of the microscope" - this was the way to enjoy the delicious fruits from the tree of knowledge and the inestimable profit of a clear, unified world view. Haeckel's nature crush did not prevent him from blowing the trumpet of progress with full cheeks. As a good Darwinist, he invited the reader to rise above his apish ancestors, to push evolution forward and to approach nature not always as an observer and connoisseur, but as a master, to open it up, to make it serviceable, to put it into value and whatever the common euphemisms are called. Instead of indulging in God's garden, man should work on it, develop it, cultivate it; what the Bible had already given him as a mission and profession. Truth and beauty, knowledge and action, nature and environment coincided for Haeckel. Thus he became the founder of a new discipline, ecology. The artificial word, intended to remind man of his origins, originated with him. It recommended him to adapt, to show consideration, to become at home in nature. But he has not done this for a long time, and not only since Haeckel's time. A species that pushes itself forward at the expense of all others and now populates the globe with more than eight billion specimens has left nature behind. It considers it its prerogative to make a killing on the riches of the earth, to exploit and exploit them, and that also means: to break with nature. Nature, however, knows how to defend itself and fights back. How and with what consequences, the biologist Rachel Carson has collected the evidence in her epoch-making book "Silent Spring". Using songbirds as an example, she describes the dwindling of species, the desolation of the land, the loss of wealth, joy and imagination, and all that follows. "We are about to wipe out the foundations of English poetry," Aldous Huxley, the novelist, is said to have exclaimed in horror to his brother Julian, the biologist, after reading Carson's book. And Julian proved him right. You don't have to be a poet to realize that the use of tons of environmental toxins is ruining not only the livelihoods of birds, our lovely singers, as they are then regularly called, but also those of humans; the biologist knows this too. He sees that nature is more than an environment for Homo sapiens, and knows from history how it deals with a species that imagines itself to be the crown of creation. For them, a human being counts for no more than a spider. Germany's Greens have a hard time with this. The gap between their social instincts and their ecological conscience is causing them trouble, costing them credibility and splitting the party. The result is a lurching course on which members shimmy from one compromise to the next. To generate energy, they build solar cells over the meadows, fill the sea with wind turbines and cut wide swaths through the forest to transport the electricity from here to there. The commuter allowance promotes driving, is a sin from an ecological point of view and an expensive nonsense from an economic point of view. But it is also a social acquis, which is why it is not only being maintained, but expanded, with the approval of the Greens. They feel torn about the leaf blower, the most stupid invention of the 20th century: Should they allow it to save street sweepers from having to bend down, or ban it to protect residents from noise and the air from stench? Thoughts live slightly together, but things bump into each other hard in the room, this is also true for the Greens. They don't want to admit this, however, because they have set out to save the world: the refugees, the bats, the pack ice and the climate. Hence the shrill tone, which no one masters as well as they do. The Greens are right, after all, Niklas Luhmann mocked them, you just can't listen to them. But they should not be called lovers of nature, because nature is slow and deliberate, i.e. conservative; and therefore unfashionable. This goes against the grain of the Greens, because if they want to be something and be called that, then modern. "Dare more progress," the simple slogan of the traffic light coalition, was after all also their program. No other party wants as unconditionally as they do to trim man to progress, to free him from the constraints of nature. And this, emancipation, requires not only breaking the chains of society, but also throwing off the shackles of nature, knocking out the dowry. Progress wants the whole man. With this in mind, the Greens have sent a queer commissioner to the federal government, with the rank of state secretary even. He is supposed to teach people that nature was a bungler when it made bisexuality the driving force of evolution. The Greens want to do better, to leave nature behind and replace old-fashioned biology with genderism as the new science of life. People, even half children, should be allowed to freely choose their gender, their parents, their siblings and whatnot. They will then also choose green, and so everything fits together well. If one holds it with the Greens, then there is a good and a bad nature. With dogs, fish, fir trees and so on she has done it right, there are two sexes, there nature can and should remain as it is. With the human being, however, it has done some things wrong. It has brought him into the world as a social creature, dependent on society, and thus made him dependent, dependent on the constraints of society, the source of all evil. Therefore, society must be deconstructed, smashed and rebuilt from the ruins - along with it the old, misshapen, bisexually deformed human being. Man and woman, that's far too little for the Greens, the world is open, trans, bi, diverse and queer. If it is not, then it must be set up that way, and that is what the Greens are there for. The only question then remains: What should the new human being look like? Which pattern is valid, according to which plan will it be optimized? Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) What do i always say? "The Germans are hysterical romantics." Edit: I get two different translations for the German word "Romantiker", depending on what translator I use: romanticist, and romantic. Which now is correct? And if both are possible, what subtelty is their difference? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

04-26-22, 10:22 AM	#2
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,319 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	Gender is not biological sex. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

04-26-22, 10:51 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	And I can breath underwater by simply assuming I am a fish. Social models and theories that violate biological facts, make no sense. XX or XY chromosomes. Hormones. Metabolism. Physical traits. Gender "choice" not in congruency with these, make no sense. 60 gender categories to "choose" from, even switching back and forth between them at will? Bull. Anyway, the linked article is about a bit more than just this. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

04-26-22, 11:19 AM	#4
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,319 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	Where is the biology in these genders? See 7.5 and 8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender...le%20connector. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

04-26-22, 02:48 PM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	^ Distraction. Take away the physical preconditions of human's manifestation, consider the material precondition for every thought and every emotion, every metobolistic function and every hormon quantity in the bloodstream, every neuron firing and every perception of the senses "computed" by the brain, null and void and meaningless, and you end up with a state of things so free and cleaned of any identity that we have a name for it: "Death". We are in function what the matter defines us to be, we cannot be what our material preconditions do not enable us to be, we can not become more or anything different than what our genes set the limits and borders for within which any individual "interpretation"/manifestation of ours realises itself in interaction with the environment. Biological factors and variables precede the forming of mind and feeling. From Eros to Cosmos, from Cosmos to Logos. Only this way - not the other way around. Still dont see it? Then put your head into a waterpool and try to breath water by imagining to be a fish. Social roles are not genetics, and its genetics that decide our skin colour, eyes colour and hair colour and the many other biophysical variables defining us, our hormone state, our pyhsicla strengths and weaknesses, our vulenraiblity for deseases or special strong immunity to them. Without genes, we would not be anything. We would not even exist. You may see people with many "genders" around, that they can choose from and change as they want. I see people with many psychologial problems, and many different sexual tastes and fetishes, appetites and preferences. The chemical basis of life is not arbitrarily selectable according to taste, vogue, or political demand. You want to change the identity of any lifeform? You have to change its genetical basis, its chemistry. And this is what can be measured in the lab. There comes a woman claiming she "identifies as a man"? I ask for her genetical profile and hormonal profile and such stuff. And this alone decides for me whether or not I take that claim serious. If the data is against it, I know she is having big mental and identity problems and needs therapy. And thats wha I would tell her. Even if she stomps her feet and insists she were a "he". Le the boys be boys. Let the girls be girls. The one is not better or worse than the other. Let them be equal before the law. But let both be DIFFERENT. Discrimination means only this, originally: to realise and accept the differences. Modern language has completely perverted this term. And hence, i insist on discriminating. If one holds it with the Greens, then there is a good and a bad nature. With dogs, fish, fir trees and so on she has done it right, there are two sexes, there nature can and should remain as it is. With the human being, however, it has done some things wrong. It has brought him into the world as a social creature, dependent on society, and thus made him dependent, dependent on the constraints of society, the source of all evil. Therefore, society must be deconstructed, smashed and rebuilt from the ruins - along with it the old, misshapen, bisexually deformed human being. Man and woman, that's far too little for the Greens, the world is open, trans, bi, diverse and queer. If it is not, then it must be set up that way. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 04-26-22 at 02:59 PM.

04-26-22, 02:54 PM	#6
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,319 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	It is you who does not get it. Why does the German language have four genders? __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

04-26-22, 03:34 PM	#7
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	And now grammar... Has been ridden to death over here in Germany, namely by ultrafeminists. And has practically not much to do with the artic le I quoted, have you realised that...? Genderism is NOT the focus of that article, yet you bring it up. Of course you can do that, but I have made my point clear on it, and not for the first time. I dont buy all this language policing and social re-engineering crap. I am a bit old-fashioed, and stick with how nature has dersigned our heterosexual species that despoite all ideological furor still needs a male man and a female woman for natural reproduction. Any social designs ignoring this I cannto take serious, sorry - its a safee policy for acchieveing demographic decline and then civilizational and then biological extinction. Im done with this part of the talk. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.