502
communications, biosemiosis, all those rudiments of biophilia and physiolatry—the
true love of nature—that have so rapidly risen in importance as their precise
opposites—human-based destruction of the world—has escalated.
11
Removed from electronic circuit boards and microchips, from the labored history of calculus and all the counting that has given inexorable voltage the infinitely
dangerous live wires that now surround human life, are the esthetics, the saints, and
all those other 100 million+ species whose very lack of obsession with such objets
grossiers, the callous mechanics we think we thrive upon, are their salvation. Of
course, it all strikes of paradox. We write at least part of this text on a—indeed
very—convenient computer, looking out at a forest. Yet, we are a species for whom
the forest, at least for many, is somehow insufficient. A few uncontacted tribes, and
veritable hermits undermine this all but universal rule, in the twenty-first century.
Hence, a human biology that has fueled restlessness to the point of going to the
moon, sending things to Mars, compiling a list of exobiological habitable
(“Goldilocks zones)
12
with calculations ranging from dozens to billions of potential
other life-supportive planets in the universe. Is this rage to list other prospects predicated on reverence? Are we to suppose that we will just eventually obtain technology sufficient to get us to one of these other planets, and by instant accommodation
refresh our entire inner nature out there? Neither the science nor its psychology
warrants much of a response; we cannot get it right here; why dignify the argument
that we could get it right elsewhere?
This fascination is the height of our rejection of earth; a symptom of having so
perverted the notion what is reciprocal in nature, that we no longer remember, from
moment to moment, the joys of our childhood heroes, including Doctor Dolittle and
Lassie. Clare of Assisi (1194–1253) was struck by the beauty and simplicity of her
local colleague, Francis, as he spoke to birds and to wolves. Born to a wealthy noble
family (the Offreduccio’s) she nonetheless chose to renounce everything but the
church of Saint Damian that Francis had recommended for her. There she became
the first abbess of a Utopian community. All the more ironic, then, that in the twentieth century the Vatican should view her as, among other things, the patron saint of
television, for having seen the “funeral rites of Saint Francis ‘projected’ at Saint
Damian’s”.
13
11 See “Infographic: In 80 Years, We Lost 93% Of Variety In Our Food Seeds,” by Mark Wilson,
May 11, 2012, FastCompany, https://www.fastcompany.com/1669753/infographic-in-80-yearswe-lost-93-of-variety-in-our-food-seeds?utm_source=postup&utm_medium=email&utm_cam
paign=seeds&position=5&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=12052019, Accessed May 18,
2020.
12 See The Exultant Ark – A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure, by Jonathan Balcombe, University
of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 2011, p. 188.
13 See PHIL, Planetary Habitability Laboratory, University of Puerto Rico at Arecíbo, http://phl.
upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog. See also, Choi, Charles Q. (21 August 2015).
“Giant Galaxies May Be Better Cradles for Habitable Planets”. Space.com; see also, Lammer, H.;
Bredehöft, J. H.; Coustenis, A.; Khodachenko, M. L.; et al. (2009). “What makes a planet habitable?” (PDF). The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review. 17 (2): 181–249. Bibcode:2009A&ARv.
17.181L. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-009-0019-z.
53 Non-linear Reciprocity
communications, biosemiosis, all those rudiments of biophilia and physiolatry—the
true love of nature—that have so rapidly risen in importance as their precise
opposites—human-based destruction of the world—has escalated.
11
Removed from electronic circuit boards and microchips, from the labored history of calculus and all the counting that has given inexorable voltage the infinitely
dangerous live wires that now surround human life, are the esthetics, the saints, and
all those other 100 million+ species whose very lack of obsession with such objets
grossiers, the callous mechanics we think we thrive upon, are their salvation. Of
course, it all strikes of paradox. We write at least part of this text on a—indeed
very—convenient computer, looking out at a forest. Yet, we are a species for whom
the forest, at least for many, is somehow insufficient. A few uncontacted tribes, and
veritable hermits undermine this all but universal rule, in the twenty-first century.
Hence, a human biology that has fueled restlessness to the point of going to the
moon, sending things to Mars, compiling a list of exobiological habitable
(“Goldilocks zones)
12
with calculations ranging from dozens to billions of potential
other life-supportive planets in the universe. Is this rage to list other prospects predicated on reverence? Are we to suppose that we will just eventually obtain technology sufficient to get us to one of these other planets, and by instant accommodation
refresh our entire inner nature out there? Neither the science nor its psychology
warrants much of a response; we cannot get it right here; why dignify the argument
that we could get it right elsewhere?
This fascination is the height of our rejection of earth; a symptom of having so
perverted the notion what is reciprocal in nature, that we no longer remember, from
moment to moment, the joys of our childhood heroes, including Doctor Dolittle and
Lassie. Clare of Assisi (1194–1253) was struck by the beauty and simplicity of her
local colleague, Francis, as he spoke to birds and to wolves. Born to a wealthy noble
family (the Offreduccio’s) she nonetheless chose to renounce everything but the
church of Saint Damian that Francis had recommended for her. There she became
the first abbess of a Utopian community. All the more ironic, then, that in the twentieth century the Vatican should view her as, among other things, the patron saint of
television, for having seen the “funeral rites of Saint Francis ‘projected’ at Saint
Damian’s”.
13
11 See “Infographic: In 80 Years, We Lost 93% Of Variety In Our Food Seeds,” by Mark Wilson,
May 11, 2012, FastCompany, https://www.fastcompany.com/1669753/infographic-in-80-yearswe-lost-93-of-variety-in-our-food-seeds?utm_source=postup&utm_medium=email&utm_cam
paign=seeds&position=5&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=12052019, Accessed May 18,
2020.
12 See The Exultant Ark – A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure, by Jonathan Balcombe, University
of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 2011, p. 188.
13 See PHIL, Planetary Habitability Laboratory, University of Puerto Rico at Arecíbo, http://phl.
upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog. See also, Choi, Charles Q. (21 August 2015).
“Giant Galaxies May Be Better Cradles for Habitable Planets”. Space.com; see also, Lammer, H.;
Bredehöft, J. H.; Coustenis, A.; Khodachenko, M. L.; et al. (2009). “What makes a planet habitable?” (PDF). The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review. 17 (2): 181–249. Bibcode:2009A&ARv.
17.181L. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-009-0019-z.
53 Non-linear Reciprocity