Why did this movie present a false dichotomy between Man and nature? The entire time I watched this...

Why did this movie present a false dichotomy between Man and nature? The entire time I watched this, I waited for the moment when the truth about Zak was discovered (that he was helping those other men chop down trees) and he had to explain why humans chop trees down. The movie would have been smart if Zak explained that humans need the trees to build homes, and that it's no less natural than a beaver building a dam or birds building nests. He should have explained that using machines was not unnatural because animals such as Chimpanzees have been known to use tools. Finally, when Chrysta first met Zak, he was almost eaten by some sort of salamander until she told it he was her friend. Animals eat each other and hurt each other in nature, so the argument that humans are "hurting" trees is also hypocritical since none of the pixies seem to have a problem with the other animals being violent.

I get that that movie was going for the environmentalist angle and it was 1992, but it just seems like an absurd oversimplification and kind of deafens that audience to message when the tone of the movie is such a caricature.

...

alt righters are fucking idiots

Blow

Yeah just yesterday a group of local beavers felled 500 square acres of old growth

Kek

You know, we could probably solve the logging problem through GMOs. The wood we use for lumber (fast growing trees) is getting weaker and weaker since, obviously, the time it takes for the trees to mature can't keep up with demand. Producing a genetically modified fast-growing tree with better physical properties would solve that problem. I have a feeling, though, that liberals would be against that because of "muh nature, GMOs are bad".

You planning on eating the gmo wood?

It's a fairy tale and you're asking for it to be a human tale.

>Human tails? Humans don't have tails! They have big big bottoms that they walk around with wearing bad shorts going, "Hi Helen!"

>Why did this movie present a false dichotomy between Man and nature?

It's not the only movie this has come up and I entirely agree that it is an annoying distinction. I think people do it because by making mankind unnatural they can easily paint a black and white morality tale when reality is much more complicated.

I think it goes without saying that the one group of people who fall for this trap are vegans who are trying to sell you a meat is murder line without realising the self-defeating logic.

If the central plot is actually a story of industrialisation like Princess Mononoke then I'm cool with it.

Forgot my pic

just nuke this whole planet 2bh pham

the logging problem is mostly in 3rd world countries where they are dirt poor and wood is worth more than....well, dirt. So they chop down some protected rainforests to sell some wood to make some money.

Logging is usually done for land. The wood is a huge bonus, but land to grow crops and livestock is better. Basically, we need to starve out people in south america and africa. Let the people there die and let nature have it back. Stop donating to funds to save people, donate to save big cats so they eat people. Less people, less fucking with the rainforest.

>making mankind unnatural
I hate vegans but this is a very weak argument against them.

What we as humans can do is so unlike any other animal that it might as well be unnatural

Just imagine if humans had never made it to Australia, New Zealand, and the Americas. All the animals that wouldn’t have been driven to extinction. We’d still have the moa and many of the larger mammals of North America. But they’re all gone and for what? What did the Australian, New Zealand, and American aborigines ever contribute to the world?

What a fucking shame

We don't do that either.

because there's no old growth left

I know, the beavers chewed it all up

>What we as humans can do is so unlike any other animal that it might as well be unnatural

Ergo, following that logic, equating human and animal rights is self-evidently bullshit. The point I'm getting it is the argument is never 'humans are a higher form of life who should show compassion for lesser lifeforms' but rather seeks to present us as a somehow uniquely wicked species picking on life with equal footing.

I would also argue that while humans are certainly more capable of doing amazing things it is dangerous to rely too much on a humanist outlook when talking about the species as a whole because it gives us a sense of invulnerability and loses sight of the complexity. We may, for example, be presently ruining the planet for ourselves but every species does this until overpopulation renders the environment hostile to the species itself (consider mass starvation herbivores grow out of control) and we need to look at how we can break such a natural cycle because we already know how it ends.

>tfw 200,000 acres of the forest I work on burned last summer and I have to designate millions of board feet of burned 500+ year old trees to be turned into 2x4s

Who gives a shit

>What did the Australian, New Zealand, and American aborigines ever contribute to the world?

Are you seriously asking what the natives of the Americas contributed to mankind? Before you answer think about what you had for dinner.

wtf does this have to do with your boogeyman?

>when you have so much respect for nature that you permanently exterminate the vast majority of it