I was just talking to a friend about the fatal flaw in Marxian analysis of capitalism Both the analysis and the proposed solution focused on owning the means of production, but none of it says anything about the well-being of the humans, the community, and the eco-system involved.
In contrast, look at say, how the Hopi views things. There is a faction among the Hopi that never signed anything with the US government. Their view is that ownership is granted to those that take care of it. It isn’t about the means of production, but rather, your ability to participate in the land’s wel-being. A further implication is that, within this world view, you cannot accumulate capital beyond your personal ability to take care of it. Instead of gaining property rights, and having social expectations for taking care of it, you don’t get those rights until you demonstrate ongoing care.
It goes even further. Can you own a person because you “take care” of that person? If you reject that idea, what about any living being? Do you really own the trees, the birds, the bees? Instead, you view this as being in relation within a community that take care of the land. You obtain an yield (one of the permaculture design principles), but you don’t exclusively do so. Other living beings within the land can also obtain a yield, whether it is also the food, water or habitat.
Apparently forest cover is ~30%. Note that "forest" here uses the wood industry's definition of forest (tree plantation), not the ecological one.
Also, it blows my mind every day how thorough and complete our estrangement with nature has become... Barely anyone seems to notice or be disturbed by the loss of natural heritage in this country.
I grew up in northeastern America and have gotten used to it's wilderness. After moving to Berlin, I was shocked to discover that much of what looked like "forests" on the maps of Eastern Germany are actually just grids of identical coniferous trees in a barely-alive landscape, criss-crossed by dirt roads.
Conversely, it never ceases to amuse and sadden me how astounded Germans are by my stories of wilderness just a few hours drive from NYC.
If you ever get lost in here in The Netherlands, just walk straight for 30 minutes and you'll hit a probably decent, paved road. Or stand still and wait for the sounds of a car.
I might me exaggerating for some exceptional places, but not much.
Another fun fact: there is actually no true wilderness in Europe - literally the entire biome has been demonstrated to have been selectively cultivated by humans for 10's of thousands of years.
There are cultivated areas of wilderness in North and South America. But the way it is cultivated is more like the modern “perennial food forest”, and not “scientific forestry” you see in Europe.
In contrast, look at say, how the Hopi views things. There is a faction among the Hopi that never signed anything with the US government. Their view is that ownership is granted to those that take care of it. It isn’t about the means of production, but rather, your ability to participate in the land’s wel-being. A further implication is that, within this world view, you cannot accumulate capital beyond your personal ability to take care of it. Instead of gaining property rights, and having social expectations for taking care of it, you don’t get those rights until you demonstrate ongoing care.
It goes even further. Can you own a person because you “take care” of that person? If you reject that idea, what about any living being? Do you really own the trees, the birds, the bees? Instead, you view this as being in relation within a community that take care of the land. You obtain an yield (one of the permaculture design principles), but you don’t exclusively do so. Other living beings within the land can also obtain a yield, whether it is also the food, water or habitat.