In my architecture discussion section we have idealistic conversations about nature and the built environment. My fellow students try to wax poetically about how the world would be better if everyone did x, y, and z. "If only people knew about being environmentally friendly, if only people were informed..."
I'm not necessarily pessimistic, but I am a realist. People know smoking is bad for them...yet they do it anyway. People know driving gas guzzling cars is bad for the environment...but they continue to drive anyway. The fact of the matter is that we do not see immediate consequences for our actions, so therefore we continue in our set ways. /End rant/
My real reason to post was these images I found via one of my fav blogs Goodmorning & Goodnight. Which he took via here.
We idealize and romanticize nature all the time. Both of these pictures are 'nature' but with two very different patterns of organization. We (as in my fellow architecture discussion student collectively) love to say over and over again that we have to get back to 'nature' and be more balanced with 'nature', yet no one has defined exactly what nature and natural means. How can we have a discussion when we are not even defining what we are discussing in the first place?