Inclusional arboriculture- from the top

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Careful, this is getting a bit like that God thread.

 

I sincerely hope not!

[Mesterh]

Ok had a read of it.

 

Not my thing tbh plus it didnt read very well to me, but that could be because of my lack of interest I suppose:001_smile:

 

So best I leave it at that.

[BatiArb]

There is absolutely nothing - not one thing - in the whole doument which is not better explained by existing evolutionary theories.

 

I personally think people should make the effort to make sure they understand evolutionary theory before trying replace it with something else.

 

 

OK so how are we evolving then?

 

The natural selection within human populations is dictated by how we think, one way or the other.

 

 

.

 

let me put it this way, as long as you are certain, we can never move forward, only when you discover doubt and question will any change take place in mindfull evolutionary change.

.

 

 

 

Absolutely this is the fundamental basis for scientific enquiry.

 

 

 

 

.

[gibbon]

Am I missing something here? I may be about to expose my ignorance here but I fail to see any great revalations in this paper.

 

My understanding of this paper (after deciphering the over complicated poetic mumbo jumbo) is that Rayner is just reiterating what we already knew about recyclers and evolution. Is the the essence of the evolution theory not that if a niche or opportunity for life is available a species will adapt to exploit it? Then does it not seem logical that within any living system varying niches will develop and different organisms will exploit them, and inturn these organisms will provide potential opportunities for other organisms in a potentially endless loop?

 

Of course fungi have a role as recyclers. If an organism dd not fulfill this role not only would our planet be littered with millions of years worth of dead plants and animal corpses, but we would also have a huge hole in the theory of evolution.

 

So is the basis for this "inclusional" theory that the tree and fungi are not either in direct competition for space and time or have a clear cut sympiotic relationship, but are part of an ever changing a dynamic ecosystem or changing circle of life? ie, the tree has reduntant heart wood-the fungi exploit this-the tree is able to recycle and re-use material previously locked up in redundant woody tissue but now re-available for uptake because of recycling?

 

Like I say, I may be missing the piont here so please enlighten me if I have, or have I unwittingly been a closet inclusionalist the whole time?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

There are more closet inclusionists about, thats kinda the whole point of this thread, to draw you out and make all the connections.

 

This proves a difficult task because poeple fail to grasp what is the principal goal of inclusionality, to re awaken "natural empathy" introduce all the fundementals of what it means to be human to a way of thinking that combines them, the analytical mind of science, the artistic expressionism that is so much a part of human nature and the need for some kind of spiritual connection to provide answers when these can not be found by pure science.

 

It is a way of thinking that breaks away from hard lines, boundries and elitism.

 

Science can not answer the spiritual needs of man, Religion cannot answer the scientific needs of man, niether can explain art but "inclusionality" brings all of these together in a way that makes perfect sense and is for many of us sublime common sense.

 

I dont think anyone could deny that the human race is on the verge of make or break, if it isnt a war, its unsustainable practices, we need a new more coherant way of thinking that connects us back to nature, to our spirituality but also keeps the art of science close.

 

Some have said of the advantages of science and the secular society, but that society is unsustainable, it wont provide the answers in time. Its time to rethink our perspectives, our goals and our roles.

[gibbon]

 

This proves a difficult task because poeple fail to grasp what is the principal goal of inclusionality, to re awaken "natural empathy" introduce all the fundementals of what it means to be human to a way of thinking that combines them, the analytical mind of science, the artistic expressionism that is so much a part of human nature and the need for some kind of spiritual connection to provide answers when these can not be found by pure science.

 

It is a way of thinking that breaks away from hard lines, boundries and elitism.

 

Science can not answer the spiritual needs of man, Religion cannot answer the scientific needs of man, niether can explain art but "inclusionality" brings all of these together in a way that makes perfect sense and is for many of us sublime common sense.

 

 

I'm still not getting this. Page 9-14 of the article make perfect sense to me, but where is all this cosmic spiritual re-awakeng stuff coming from. I can completely understand that a tree (or any other organism) is a dynamic system, or a system of parts, in much the same way a a forest is. Science knows all about this. But how does the realisation that there is a whole, very complicated system full of different organisms all effecting and altering conditions for other organisms become the answer to all spiritual, religous and scientic qyuestions in the world?

 

Are you saying science thinks a tree is a plant, and a decay fungi is a bad organisms trying to kill this tree, black/white good/bad. And that this Rayner guy has come along and said, "hang on a minute, these organisms have been around for millions of years and the process has become a little more involved than that. The tree has developed alongside this fungi and in some way can benifit from its presence"?

 

I think either I am completely missing the piont here, or is this just a discussion on the complexity of nature?

[chris cnc]

nature is ancient and incredibly complex, we already know this... combining science with some sort of strange theology sounds like a step backwards to me, not forwards.

 

[arb culture]

There are more closet inclusionists about, thats kinda the whole point of this thread, to draw you out and make all the connections.

 

This proves a difficult task because poeple fail to grasp what is the principal goal of inclusionality, to re awaken "natural empathy" introduce all the fundementals of what it means to be human to a way of thinking that combines them, the analytical mind of science, the artistic expressionism that is so much a part of human nature and the need for some kind of spiritual connection to provide answers when these can not be found by pure science.

 

It is a way of thinking that breaks away from hard lines, boundries and elitism.

 

Science can not answer the spiritual needs of man, Religion cannot answer the scientific needs of man, niether can explain art but "inclusionality" brings all of these together in a way that makes perfect sense and is for many of us sublime common sense.

 

I dont think anyone could deny that the human race is on the verge of make or break, if it isnt a war, its unsustainable practices, we need a new more coherant way of thinking that connects us back to nature, to our spirituality but also keeps the art of science close.

 

Some have said of the advantages of science and the secular society, but that society is unsustainable, it wont provide the answers in time. Its time to rethink our perspectives, our goals and our roles.

 

Ah, I think I've understood it now.

 

Inclusional arboriculture is a religion, and the bits you don't understand you simply make up to satisfy some spiritual desire.

 

This theory/belief is aided and supported by lots of rhetoric and a liberal sprinkling of pseudoscience.

 

Because it's a religion rather than a scientific theory, I'll not dispute it, because that's not polite.

[gibbon]

OK so how are we evolving then?

 

The natural selection within human populations is dictated by how we think, one way or the other.

 

 

 

.

 

I am of the opinion that in the modern world we have steped out of the evolutionary process. Evolution favours survival of the fittests, where the brightest, stongest and best adapted survive and reproduce the most effectively.

 

Now that we have no predators and modern medicine props up the infirm, we are nurturing our weak genes rather than selectively breeding them out. Also some of our fittest, brightest, highest achievers have smaller families later in life because of the high demands of their occupations. At the same time societies lowest acheivers often have the most childeren at times with the worst diets and higher incindence of health problems.

 

All of this to me is a backward evolutionary step which is ultimately likely to contribute to our demise.-Cheery thought for a Monday morning, but I've got food piosoning.

[BatiArb]

I am of the opinion that in the modern world we have steped out of the evolutionary process. Evolution favours survival of the fittests, where the brightest, stongest and best adapted survive and reproduce the most effectively.

 

Arguing the validity of the theory and it should not be possible to ‘step out from it’……

 

However, principles of the theory aside, I do consider the current human population to be evolving, and at the present time I believe this is at a really fast rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we have no predators and modern medicine props up the infirm, we are nurturing our weak genes rather than selectively breeding them out. Also some of our fittest, brightest, highest achievers have smaller families later in life because of the high demands of their occupations. At the same time societies lowest acheivers often have the most childeren at times with the worst diets and higher incindence of health problems.

 

 

We have predators, they are just a lot smaller than us. Germs - Viruses, Bacteria and Fungi....

 

 

Yes, I used to have those thoughts on a regular basis myself. Usually with a pint or two down my neck.

 

However, this is evolution, and you have said it yourself.....

 

 

This is another reason why the next evolutionary step will not necessarily be a physical change, but a mental one.

 

.

 

 

All of this to me is a backward evolutionary step which is ultimately likely to contribute to our demise.-Cheery thought for a Monday morning, but I've got food piosoning.

 

 

.

 

No we are most definitely moving forward and that is the whole point of this thread.

 

 

This is an invitation encourage you to think about it and open your mind to the next evolutionary step....

 

 

 

 

 

.