Communication between freedom of the wild nature and freedom of the person.

Communication between freedom of the wild nature and freedom of the person. Freedom of the wild nature and freedom of people have insepa...

Communication between freedom of the wild nature and freedom of the person.

Freedom of the wild nature and freedom of people have inseparable communications. It is impossible to protect freedom in human society, suppressing it in the nature.

Being free, the wild nature itself has freedom values because provides to the person three types of freedoms. It is the main source of intellectual freedom or creativity, spiritual freedom, or artistic inspiration and also a political freedom as grants a shelter from authoritarian government and political oppression.
In J. Orwell's novel "1984" rulers of a police state have forbidden the wild nature as it supports freedom of thoughts and actions.
This fact has received historical confirmation in the USSR in 1951 when Stalin has personally signed the resolution on closing of nearly hundred reserves. Quite perhaps, he understood that sites of the wild nature are islands of freedom - the last shelter from totalitarianism.

Drew Weiland researches three most outstanding anti-utopian novels of the era ("We" of Evgeniy Zamyatin, "the Marvellous New World" of Huxley and "1984" of Orwell) and opens that all three works give comparison between next era of totalitarianism and an archaic era of primitiveness in the nature. Writers claim that only coming back to the last, rescue from totalitarian prosecution is possible. It is possible to save the world only by escaping to free nature.

In other words, the wild nature is considered as a necessary condition of freedom of personal behavior and choice.
Referring to the American historian of natural conservation Douglas Weiner, F.R. Shtilmark wrote: "The Soviet reserves which he called "islands of freedom" rescued not only the nature, but also the Russian intellectuals, in particular, many of a plentiful layer "the Russian Germans". Only for an example it can be said about Yurgenson, Kreps, Knorre, brother and sister Gruner - all of them have escaped only thanks to the fact that worked in reserves".
This argument also belongs to some concepts of ecophilosophers, which assumes that the person expelling and alienating itself by nature thereby enslaves itself.
In the novel "Hermits of the Desert" the American writer E. Abbey defends freedom of the wild nature "for the political reasons". He believes that people need wild territories as a possible sanctuary, the place of protection against pressure of government structures and as the base for fight against dictatorships.
Abbey warns that in the modern world there can be changes when any dictatorship demands to destroy the wild nature: to build dams on the rivers, to dry up bogs, to fell trees, to destroy mountains, to irrigate deserts, to plow virgin steppes, and to turn national parks into platforms for the parking. Therefore Abbey urges people to protect freedom of the wild nature also to preserve their freedom - "the person can't be freedom without the wild nature".
People's freedom must compatible to freedom of the wild nature. The person has to approve it's freedom not through destruction of the wild nature, suppressing her freedom, not through control over her but through logical coordination of the free existence with the principle of free existence of the wild nature (a сoevolution, ecological consent with the nature).

Source: Ecological-cultural center, Kyiv.

GLF comment:

Communication of the wild Nature and freedom of the person in a totalitarian/police state is obvious. Not without reason Ernst Jünger called the way to keep internal freedom in the conditions of hostile society "leaving in the Wood".
Nowadays we can see attempt at freedom of the wild nature on the background of "crackdown" in Russia.

You Might Also Like

0 коммент.

Flickr Images