Strangers and Community

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance Rewilding Mind & Heart
#1

Hey all,

For a while I’ve been thinking about the idea of strangers and this whole concept of “helping our fellow man”. I have to say, I’m not really concerned with “saving humanity” from destruction anymore and am more concerned with “saving the humans that I love” and the landbase itself. I feel like this relates in a way to the “would you pick up trash” conversation. Not quite sure how to articulate why they are connected. But there is a similar feeling about both issues that I get. It’s like, I don’t want to fuck over a stranger in need, because they could be a good person and we could build a relationship. but I’m also not going to go out of my way to befriend and help someone just because I “should”. Similarly I’ll pick up a piece of garbage (not that strangers are garbage hahaha) here and there, but I don’t want to make it my lifes work. Not sure if that’s the relation or not.

  1. What do you feel about “Humanity” in this context? Are humans actually capable of thinking that large?

  2. Where do you draw the borders of your community? What makes someone a stranger? What is the difference between a stranger and an acquaintance?

  3. Overall, what are your personal feelings about helping “Humanity” to rewild vs. Strangers, acquaintances, friends, family?

#2

Excellent questions. I’m going to let them simmer a bit, but my instant reaction is: “saving humanity” is a completely fictitious project. In the wild, we would certainly consider individually each human in front of us: friend, foe, potential mate, do they need something we can spare, do they have something to trade, etc. But this “humanity” idea that we hear spoken of so often, what does it even represent?

It definitely relates to the trash conversation for me, because when I pick up trash, it’s because I feel a connection to the place that’s been trashed, either by long association or through love at first sight, and I want to honor that connection through meaningful action. Similarly, I love to help a person I see in need, whether it’s a member of my family or a stranger I encounter who is struggling with something I’m able to help with. However, when it’s an impersonal effort of “send money to help so-and-so” then it feels like some kind of game I’m being guilt-tripped into playing.

#3

MamaLove, I was thinking much the same thing - that the concept of “humanity” in general is abstract (and thus fictitious), and that what matters in practice is: what do I do with regard to the person who I am actually interacting with, right now? Similarly, if a person in front of me is in need, I will definitely do what I can to help them out. But in general, I exist to serve the earth and non-human life - at this point, their need is far far greater - and my personal community, first and foremost.

Regarding community: I feel that whoever I regularly share my life with (eating, sleeping, anything significant) is my community, including non-humans, embedded in a wider community of life, made up of all participants in the cycle of life and death, on the land. If someone is a stranger, and remains a stranger after our interaction, I do not consider them part of my community. If I were to (the way most people seem to), I think the word community would lose all meaning.

#4

I often remind myself of this by seeing the population of a city whose limits I pass into. If the number is greater than 20,000 people, I think, “Thats enough people that, if the entire rest of the Earth were suddenly and mysteriously rid of humans, the H. sapiens species would live on for quite a long time and without too much trouble.” I dont like it when someone dies, but at the same time, I cant set the value of a (randomly selected and hypothetical) human life greater than, say, a bengal tiger. If the choice were between my brother and a bengal tiger… Much uncertainty arrives.

#5

[font=georgia]#1 - I agree that the concept of ‘humanity’ is nothing more than another tool used for ulterior motives, if anything when I hear people use this term, I think humanity = dominant civilized society. ‘Humanity’ has no desire to ‘save’ me, nor do I have any desire to save it. I do not believe that any animal lumps all of their species into one group and hence would never look to the benefit of all - which is also a fallacy in the very thought that anything can be right for all. There are those who are better off left to their own demise.

#2 - Our belief is very similar to a circle concept. Inside the circle is the Tribe, everyone else is outside. There are those we work/share with who are friends and acquaintances but though they may be closer to the circle, they are still outside the circle. Trust is granted exclusively to those within. Those on the border may share limited amounts of understanding or reciprocal relations, but they are still not completely trusted. Those beyond the borders are strangers. The land we are most intimate with is our community [I would say ‘our range’ upon which we hunt/gather/plant/nurture.], the land bordering it is still close to us but with time and distance our relationship changes. For instance, I may have a bond with the Wild, but an area 1,000 miles away would not be as closely tied to my life as the one I stand upon each day.

#3 - This answer is very similar to #2. "humanity’ - no desire, strangers - if interest is shown say at a skill-share or the like I have no problem sharing knowledge of a limited variety, acquaintances - if interest is shown, I may reveal a bit more knowledge than that shared with a stranger but not much, friends - if you are a friend then we have a relationship based on more truth and so my concern would be greater in hopes that they would also find the value in rewilding, Tribe - I would die for

Note: Family is often misinterpreted by many. Just because one shares blood does not make them Tribe, just because you have the DNA doesn’t give you a pass.[/font]