The idea that someone can own a forest/land and charge you to live in it

[skydog]

If you spend enough time around trees/plants you will probably notice they are living intelligent beings...

 

Do I feel like an owner of a forest or do I feel like the forest owns me. I feel like an integral part of an interconnected intelligence of forest like a cell of a plant.

 

I think humans need to revert back to living 80% nature, 20% technology.

 

If I wanted to go and live in the woods even temporarily I get the idea some idiot would come along and try to "charge" me for it, because apparantly he owns the land.

 

I consider that theft.

 

I dont consider it to theft to not have to pay money to live on earth.

Edited October 1, 2012 by sinansencer

[zanshin]

I give thanks to "idiots" who maintain forest land they pay taxes on as forests, rather than allowing them to be cut down for development, and for keeping other idiots out who would kill the trees and animals, pollute and strew trash about, make unsafe campfires. or even generally tear things up with their noisy smelly ATVs.

[amoyaan]

Funny you should say that. I went to the woods yesterday to do qigong and I just wanted to stay there. I had a sudden desire to live in the woods, surrounded by trees. I've had it before. It may not be very practical, but I sure would love to. Where you find nature you find peace, aliveness, stillness...where you find humankind you find concrete, noise and conflict.

 

The concept of 'ownership' is a totally manmade illusion, like kids playing pretend. I remember learning in philosophy that the"'state of nature", where mankind essentially lived in harmony with nature and his fellow man was shattered by the invented delusion of ownership and all the power struggles, greed and conflict that came with it.

[amoyaan]

Oops, posted the same message twice. My bad.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Dreamlight Fugitive

[GrandmasterP]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Woodland-Way-Permaculture-Sustainable-Management/dp/1856230090/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349106531&sr=1-1

 

Go for it Sinan.

The guy who wrote this book did. What's to stop you?

[skydog]

I give thanks to "idiots" who maintain forest land they pay taxes on as forests, rather than allowing them to be cut down for development, and for keeping other idiots out who would kill the trees and animals, pollute and strew trash about, make unsafe campfires. or even generally tear things up with their noisy smelly ATVs.

 

hmm perhaps a bit emotional on my part, I just dont see it as fair/see it that Im being charged to survive

Edited October 1, 2012 by sinansencer

[skydog]

good posts rory and grandmaster P I agree...I may like to experiment with it for a bit...not forever though...

[joeblast]

Funny you should say that. I went to the woods yesterday to do qigong and I just wanted to stay there. I had a sudden desire to live in the woods, surrounded by trees. I've had it before. It may not be very practical, but I sure would love to. Where you find nature you find peace, aliveness, stillness...where you find humankind you find concrete, noise and conflict.

 

The concept of 'ownership' is a totally manmade illusion, like kids playing pretend. I remember learning in philosophy that the"'state of nature", where mankind essentially lived in harmony with nature and his fellow man was shattered by the invented delusion of ownership and all the power struggles, greed and conflict that came with it.

Is it manmade or is it a byproduct of nature? A spider cannot simply amble on over to a new area without having to contend with other spiders that have already inhabited the area and will defend 'their turf' to the death. As is the case with a great many species - while humans may have eventually come to generally agree on sets of established protocols, at root part of being an animal is that of using one's resources wisely and being able to have some space to call one's own, there is nothing wrong with that. Sure its on lease for a finite amount of time just like the bodies we inhabit - where do you draw the line? Man makes inventions to grease the wheels of life, so regardless of the fact that we cannot claim a piece of land for all eternity, there is but a ton of gray lines on issues like this - this "harmony of man and nature" was not "shattered" by the concept of land ownership, if such a harmony ever existed in the first place.

[GrandmasterP]

Cultivating in natural surroundings, to me; is always better cultivation than sets worked indoors. Even if it's just our own garden, to be out there with trees and plants just adds so much.

My old teacher was a big believer in waterfalls.

Cultivate by one of those and you'll know why.

[amoyaan]

Good points Joe Blast. There is a natural instinct to have a safe space, a territory I guess. The issue of ownership however is something that spiralled into all kinds of abstract complications with the human species, forming the basis of our monetary capitalist system as well as the notion of the nation state...which I still think is ridiculous each time I'm in a plane, looking down at the land. I don't see separate countries and nations -- I just see an unbroken continuity that gets cut into chunks by limited grasping minds.

 

So I guess from my perspective ownership is kind of based on a false sense of division... to a certain extent it's a necessary convention of functioning in this life, but that doesn't mean I see it as real. I once bought one of those novelty presents for my ex: an acre of land of the moon! Even at the time I thought it was hilarious and ridiculous (yet kinda romantic I hoped). But really it's not much more ridiculous than people believing they own parts of this world, and trying to sell it or charge others for it. I found it unintentionally funny when I read a while back the government were wanting to sell the country's forests, roads (and most likely oxygen supply) to other countries to make some cash. I guess why I think a lot of (or at least some) indigenous cultures had a far greater wisdom in that they realised we don't own the world -- not a single part of it. It owns us. But I guess that's a pretty philosophical argument and one that'd infuriate a lot of people as it seems counter intuitive. And I'm rambling

[zerostao]

one wandering wolfpack will know exactly their own boundary of land and where exactly the boundaries of neighboring wolf packs are.

it is only in rare cases of extreme desperation that one pack will cross into another packs' land.

and if they did cross the line there will be war. is this land ownership?

[Aetherous]

That is something which bothers me, as well. Charging money to simply exist in that which is ours by birthright. But if you play the system, put down the money, you can buy your own land. Then you just pay yearly taxes, which sometimes, can be very cheap. Get some land that borders a national forest (at least in the USA), and you are in hermit paradise.

[zanshin]

hmm perhaps a bit emotional on my part, I just dont see it as fair/see it that Im being charged to survive

 

When you live with land as part of your family, for generations, then you get pretty emotional about land. It takes care of us; we take care of it. We get, unfortunately, some up close experience with how trashy and destructive people can be. And it sort of twists your gut and feels like a violation when random strangers come barging through. Asking for permission is better, although money doesn't really make it any more palatable, maybe, maybe if you know some mutual friend who can speak as reference. Really, there are many very nice private and public parks and campgrounds where you can pay your money to stay and there is staff to supervise and clean up after you if needed. You should go there.

[zanshin]

oop double post

Edited October 1, 2012 by zanshin

[GrandmasterP]

You said that brother.

I find it amazing just how thoughtless and messy some people can be.

We go out now and again into ther adjoining park if the fire alarm goes off usually it's just a fire drill.

Everyone asembles in the park then the all clear goes and we all troop back in.

Maybe 1,500 people out on the grass sometimes.

The total mess that is left behind after just 15 or 20 minutes is dreadful and takes the carettakers an age to clear up. It's no use asking folk not to drop lite or to pick it up. They just do not think ot do not care.

It is very disheartening because it is a nice park.

[joeblast]

Good points Joe Blast. There is a natural instinct to have a safe space, a territory I guess. The issue of ownership however is something that spiralled into all kinds of abstract complications with the human species, forming the basis of our monetary capitalist system as well as the notion of the nation state...which I still think is ridiculous each time I'm in a plane, looking down at the land. I don't see separate countries and nations -- I just see an unbroken continuity that gets cut into chunks by limited grasping minds.

 

So I guess from my perspective ownership is kind of based on a false sense of division... to a certain extent it's a necessary convention of functioning in this life, but that doesn't mean I see it as real. I once bought one of those novelty presents for my ex: an acre of land of the moon! Even at the time I thought it was hilarious and ridiculous (yet kinda romantic I hoped). But really it's not much more ridiculous than people believing they own parts of this world, and trying to sell it or charge others for it. I found it unintentionally funny when I read a while back the government were wanting to sell the country's forests, roads (and most likely oxygen supply) to other countries to make some cash. I guess why I think a lot of (or at least some) indigenous cultures had a far greater wisdom in that they realised we don't own the world -- not a single part of it. It owns us. But I guess that's a pretty philosophical argument and one that'd infuriate a lot of people as it seems counter intuitive. And I'm rambling

And yet one can see the great wall of china from the moon (or was it orbit? ) the surest way to make a man independent is self reliance. While the ability for one to affect a nation(s) is limited in most contexts, making him responsible for himself and be able to see direct results from his own hard work is among the best ways for his life and those around him to be affected, extrapolate, for all to be strengthened - for the self reliant man is better able to assist others and serves as somewhat of an ideal for others to be self reliant themselves.

 

To throw a blanket over the "monetary capitalist system" is to throw a blanket over the bastardizations thereof that have led people to decry the concept in the first place. Its the bastardizations and not the notion of capitalism that are the issue - when small fraud is prosecuted to the hilt but massive fraud is encouraged and systemic - is that a product of capitalism, or is that a product of players who fought to obtain a position of power so that they might steer the ship in directions favorable to themselves and their friends? (Why was Madoff prosecuted, yet Jon Corzine is still a free man? Or, why was purchased political influence acceptable to give the nat'l assoc of realtors exemptions from having to do their money laundering fraud homework? Why'd congressman get bought so that glass steagal would be repealed and an illegal bank merger was able to take place? Why do the media refuse to report things against their particular ideology? Why would a head of state encourage people to take advantage of state aid and lament that if he's not reelected, it could herald a new, painful era of *gasp*...self reliance? Why are we ok with that same state borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar it spends and then having a debate about whether it should do more, or less? I'm rambling Nations and states are collections of usually somewhat similarly interested people, and part of being an individual, also part of being in a group, is resource management - there we have the notion of capital flight when the people controlling the purse strings get out of control, like with the superlative amount of businesses that have left places like CA since those in control there decided 'fairness' is more important than fiscal solvency - and if it aint worth the effort, people either arent going to try, or they're going to move on to greener pastures where the return on effort is more worthwhile.)

 

So maybe in one sense "while the 1s and 0s arent real," the relationships thereof are real - and what says yin and yang without a relationship to describe?

 

At root the land ownership thing goes back to owning the fruits of one's labor. Unfortunately that necessarily engenders inequality on some levels but it also gives room for those who work hard to flourish. Much like meditation - there is no such things as spiritual welfare - you have to do the work yourself, otherwise forget about making any real progress! Even the buddha didnt go walking around tapping people on the baihui and opening all their channels, no, he simply explained the roots of suffering, to which each of us has to put to practice in order to end our own suffering. So while long ago "the earth" was a vast unexplored expanse where one could settle freely just about anywhere he wished that wasnt already occupied, "the relationships thereof" have pervaded most of the inhabitable land, and "the agreements of the relationships thereof" are the law of the land, and us, as inhabitants, as citizens, have rules by which to abide.

 

Such is the concept of "ownership" - not an eternal claim, just a lease, but bound by relationships and agreements long since established. It does provide for some measure of forest dwelling, thankfully - but certainly not all of us can or are willing to go be a forest hermit! (ecosystem not being able to support such a paradigm with the large population aside..)

[skydog]

yep pointless moaning...

Edited October 2, 2012 by sinansencer

[zerostao]

alot of questions joeblast, ill try one tho,

Or, why was purchased political influence acceptable to give the nat'l assoc of realtors exemptions from having to do their money laundering fraud homework?

apparently it was thought , that if it had to be proved that all monies for properties had to be legal and clean, then , at least here in america, ALL property ownership would be under question.

 

forest ownership? we have to include the timber industry too. and they are free to cut down their forest at their own whim. as could any of the other private owners, or could also the federal govt decide to clear cut national forests. in my neck of the woods, it is the private owners who can be most trusted to protect the forest. been about 80 years since the last big clear cut masacre of trees and forest, and most folks i talk to say that clear cuttin' bizness aint gonna happen on their watch.

around 1720 appalachia was 90% forested. still about 2/3 covered. which is good.

http://www2.for.nau.edu/courses/for212/foresttypes/appalachian.htm

 

here is my question concerning the appalachian forest,

what is its most valuable resource?

it is so obvious and still seems to me, that nobody has a clue.

[Aetherous]

Watch the documentary "If a Tree Falls"...regarding some history of the timber industry in America.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[zanshin]

I may look for that documentary and I don't think most properly appreciate the damage we've done. See my little pic at the base of pine that's been here since before Europeans came to North America? The whole upper peninsula of Michigan used to be covered with huge white pines, but during the Industrial Revolution, we cut them all down for timber so we could build stuff. By the 70s, all that was left was a stand of virgin forest way up at northwestern point, and they wanted to log those; locals protested and bought by private organization for nature preserve. Now much of the UP has been reclaimed, lots of state and nature forest land. It seems like a nature lovers paradise and the lake is definitely superior. You can backpack way into the national forest and camp for free. But all the trees are less than 100 years old and it's not really the same as the feel of that stand of original forest. Oh, and it's hardwood forest now; they tried to replant pines, but for some reason they won't grow well there now.

 

Ohio was 95% forest in 1700s, 10% early 1900s, now back a little over 30% largely due to state and national lands. Much of Appalachia higher percentages, even places we absolutely trashed with strip mining coming back.

 

So my idea is first of all, no land ownership seems pretty dangerous, if people can take what they want for nothing, people are going to cut down the trees, kill the animals and mine the earth itself. It already happened. And my other idea is, if you all love being in the woods and feel connected to the trees, maybe instead of thinking you should get something and give nothing, you should try to help out. Of course not everyone can buy land and maintain it as forest, but lots of great conservation organizations and parks always looking for volunteers. Even if you pick up some trash when strolling through the local park at least that's something.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[zanshin]

Native Americans didn't have individual ownership, but tribes had territories and fierce wars were fought over territories. Outsiders probably wouldn't be charged to live on the land; they'd have been killed, tortured, sometimes they were made slaves and later adopted into the tribe

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Aetherous]

The whole upper peninsula of Michigan used to be covered with huge white pines, but during the Industrial Revolution, we cut them all down for timber so we could build stuff. By the 70s, all that was left was a stand of virgin forest way up at northwestern point, and they wanted to log those; locals protested and bought by private organization for nature preserve. Now much of the UP has been reclaimed, lots of state and nature forest land. It seems like a nature lovers paradise and the lake is definitely superior. You can backpack way into the national forest and camp for free. But all the trees are less than 100 years old and it's not really the same as the feel of that stand of original forest. Oh, and it's hardwood forest now; they tried to replant pines, but for some reason they won't grow well there now.

 

Ah yes, quite familiar. I've lived there for much of my life, and read the book True North for a class at NMU (which was partly about this). I think probably every single ancient tree is gone, which is so ridiculous to me...and now it's all ugly jack pines.

Edited October 2, 2012 by turtle shell