When this image says more than the original intention gave it to mean.
Or as the text of the petition shows…
In our towns, villages and cities, wild life in all forms is mostly unwanted, be it people having a good time together or animals eating what we threw away into the garbage, if not a few homeless people were faster.
In the forest you are also not allowed to be alive. As if the people and animals who wish to live or be free are unwanted or critical…
People are advised to not walk through forests to not destroy it, then you see big marks of forest machinery. Deer aren’t allowed to eat from small growing trees, but what else if not stealing? No bushes allowed, nothing really except for one tree and another tree, one like the other. Long, straight, without many branches. All cut, to make good wood for furniture, for boards and staffs and cubic faces.
Then people say, we need to let the forest be for itself, and yes, that is how it should be. But then they also have no alternative for those who have nothing else to live from, have they? They should have, we all should. We should be able to live together and make sure that we all can live and all have a chance, not only a few or those who are strong enough or can pressure others the most or talk as if they have eaten a whole library with “nice” sentences, only to make people believe they are on their side.
First you shoot all the wolves and bears, then all the deer, then all the rabbits and what else might move out there and if it is a lonely wanderer who didn’t want anything from anyone. And then you starve everyone to death or make them “leave” themselves.
This isn’t a solution and never will be and never was.
With enough wild life for everyone, everyone would benefit.
I hope people remember why in Europe and other areas animals like wolves, bears or such got killed? At least besides the fur or “fun” killing animals. They were hunted because they were in the way and also killing sheep, people and were dangerous. But that is only a small part of the story, but somehow the part people are more likely to remember and to hold up as argument against nature.
In a working nature, it is even possible that bears don’t eat much meat or maybe just some fish and berries or such things. They also wouldn’t have the need to attack people or go into a city backyard to steal from the garbage can… Wolves are usually also more shy and scared of humans, they know why, I bet.
When there would be enough to eat for them in the forest, they wouldn’t have to attack us or easy prey like sheep. But I can understand the fear and also that it might be difficult to understand or see whether it makes sense. I mean, in a world in which a lot of people die from alcohol, drugs, accidents and a hole shit load of sickness and don’t know how many kinds of cancer and suicide, people really care about the forest being free from animals to protect nature and the climate?! EXCUSE ME, WHAT?!
So they are afraid of this thing which we all need to survive to be bad, but everything shit is normal and should be continued or what?
To get down again, when you would see that a lot of portrays about nature are made to make people afraid of it and follow a system or “be thankful” for what they got or get, it might make sense, that we should rethink the logic of people deciding about the things which matter (the most). I have spent a lot of time in the forest next to my village/town, with foxes near me, boars, deer, squirrels and a lot of other animals. None of them attacked me, not even at times when it might have been possible that they were either having offspring or such things. They either warned me, ran away or just kept a distance. Some of them might have even asked for help in some way, like some hedgehogs. I can’t say a child of people who are giving a damn about nature or others is safe in nature, since it might not know a thing and doesn’t respect nor admire nature, but I never felt really in danger. What I can’t say about my town or anywhere where people lived. Always afraid to get ran over by a car, walk into people with stupid ideas or just jump down somewhere because it seemed all so cold, dark and empty.
Sleeping in a “safe” bed often made me feel more terrified, scared and haunted than sleeping a night out in the woods without anything but my clothes. It felt even more comfortable in a way, just a little cold, during winter.
If we all would “need” less, take less, just what we really need and also give what we can, the nature might grow back, come back to life in no time. Just these few people could grow their own little forests, what would happen, if we all (who would otherwise only do useless computer work or word games and stuff) would do the same together? Sure, the amount of people wouldn’t make the plants grow faster (and don’t come with “maybe we should use some fast growing ones or fertilizer”). But it would make sure that it would be working worldwide and also could grow up everywhere and not just here and there, until the other land might be dead and the replanted also dies out again.
Not to forget all these countless species of which so many might have never been seen by human eye before they disappeared again.
Ideas are good, changes towards nature are good and don’t have to go back and live like monkeys or cave people and we shouldn’t. Why does it seem this way? There might be ways in which both nature and a part of things we might want to do beyond can live and stay in co-existence. But like it is now, nothing will survive in the end, nothing will exist. At least not us and probably not a lot of other things.
If you could decide between a wooden cabin, sleeping on (or beneath) a tree, a hotel room, a basic town house or a hammock between some trees or a big hall or a small room in a big house – what would you want? It might depend on the region, the temperature, the wild life and what you want to risk, but really, think about it.
Inside a forest it sometimes is also warmer and safer from weather, besides the weather regulation bonus. A city usually creates bad weather because of the heat in-balance and the cold it creates at the same time. The warm air goes up, since nothing catches it, no trees to catch the camp fire heat and carbon-dioxide – while a camp fire in a forest can be dangerous of course. But that is like saying: “Cars can kill.” or “Guns can kill.” These are or should be obvious things, although for children these aren’t at times and who can blame them for the mistakes their parents or ancestors made or hold onto?
When I thought about “the future” as a child, I thought about it in a way in which we would maybe live in a way in which we would do more things ourselves, but also less things, only things we would really want or love to do. We would think or know about the consequences of things and also the relations, like how some insects, animals and plants are related and can’t really exist without each other, while others might be gone and it wouldn’t matter that much, just be sad for their kind to be gone, like many others before. But then again, maybe it just seemed they didn’t matter because we didn’t see their full potential. Like humans often just observe the surface, the face, the size and such things and measure according to these what something or someone can and can’t and should and shouldn’t be able to. That a small animal can’t be smarter than a big one or that it might not be important, because it just “looks good” or whatever, as if a butterfly has no importance other than flying around and often having a beautiful appearance. Sure it might be depending on the eye of the observer, but then I think you could either see only dark or get blinded by neon lights, like so many insects – like people – and maybe some deer in front of a car. If a firefly would be as bright as some city lights have lumen, a forest would probably be less dark at night. But then again, it would be harder to sleep and also need immense energy to keep that light up for these little fliers. Might be a reason for them to be as bright as they are and doesn’t really speak for all these lights in the cities. Just imagine a big city without any light, at least natural lights excluded. Then there would only be big dark blocks rising into the night sky and some stars looking down from above. It would be a scary place to be, dark, cold and finally be seen in the same way as they are, lost places or places where you get lost.
It is interesting how people are afraid to get lost in a forest, but not in a city, although the possibility to die in a city is much higher, I would say. Don’t you think? And don’t come with safety, hygiene and help. Yes, depending on the region, the city and people, there might be some help here and there, some places, but then in the end whether it is basic survival inside a steal forest or an actual forest, I think chances are higher to find something to good to eat out in a forest. At least if we wouldn’t live in a modernized version of the middle aged antiquity, so to say.
Did you know that the forest regions in a lot of countries are actually reforestation results? And also mostly because of wars, economic reasons and such things either cut down or recreated? When I remember correct then was the “Black Forest” or “Schwarzwald” where I live, once even more of a mixed forest with all kinds of plants and trees, unlike now in some areas, where there are mostly similar trees, often used for wood and such things, instead of having a natural environment. This way the forest we have today is actually “fake” you could say, since it is mostly replanted, after it was cut down to pay “Restauration” or process wood and such things.
The name of the forest might still be true, but for other reasons, since it might have been a bigger forest area some time ago. But these days, you will probably only find a few trees which are older than the two world wars, if even. Most trees are cut down after a few decades and then some new ones get planted to be cut down again. In the forest near my village there are a lot of trees, but most of them young trees and there isn’t really something like “the old tree”. Even some of the older trees where either cut down or broke down through the years because there have been a few bigger ones, which are now gone.
I hope you know by now that trees can grow and grow, maybe not infinitely, I don’t know, but something like (some?) fish. As long as they won’t get eaten or cut down and stuff they live on. Some trees might get high and big as some big family houses. Probably way more stable against weather and also way cooler since the tree would be somewhat unique. Wild trees grow towards the sun, but also around and have many branches, unlike a lot of trees you see in the forests these days, at least where I live. Usually most of the branches get removed constantly to spare the wood from the branches, since they could leave marks in the wood and make it either useless or harder to process.
What would speak against a few hammocks in the trees or some wooden cabins in the forest? Compared with the cities and garbage mountains we created and still create, that sounds almost utopic, don’t you think? I think the forest would be most willing to hand over some branches or trees, if we then would leave the rest be and protect them instead of using them to just throw it away or build stupid things no one needs… or even worse, just burn all of them or dig deep holes (again)…
What is better, killing all animals by taking their basis to live or killing a few of them, while the rest would survive or handle themselves? What makes more sense? Ignoring the situation and trying to survive in metal bunkers as long as possible until there is nothing else to eat but ourselves or maybe give it a chance to change things drastically, but in a good way? People who wouldn’t want to eat meat could live without and maybe even some animals would change, but I don’t know, I just know, passively killing EVERYTHING is also no solution and just talking about these things also isn’t. But it is even worse to ignore it and pretend to do something good, while secretly pushing the problem further away, until someone gets it all at once and break beneath. I don’t know, maybe one day everything gets washed away. All I know about it, that would it be too late, we wouldn’t have people here and there who want to at least give it a chance and try to live different and save what might be there to safe.
Otherwise what’s the point of it all anyway? If not protecting and caring for those you love, then all there is could be a big wheel of fire forever and ever. Just getting born and burn and born and burn. In nature things happen, but there can also be good things. Not everything has to be violent and aggressive. If even some of us can be kind and peaceful, why couldn’t animals as well? If we can change, why couldn’t they? It isn’t about whether I am to decide who lives or dies, I can’t do such things. But would we die anyway one day, at least knowing there was something worth living for and not just endless pain with a few moments on drugs.
Having a butterfly pass you by or even sit on your arm can be so much, if you are open for it. It might be that for now some animals eat others, but then snakes even eat their own kind in a hole full of them. And even we eat one another, when there is nothing else to eat.
Who knows, would there be seemingly endless forests full of fruits, berries and all kinds of plants, would we or they still need to eat meat? Isn’t eating meat more “the easy” way to not go searching for something else or to at least eat something before you starve? Think about it and then tell me, should we build more cities or more forests? And should we still kill more animals or maybe just let those be who still are and care that there is enough to eat for us and them?
Either we all somehow get along or we all die, it is that simple, it is that hard.