Forest therapy?

Seems uncool to charge for such a thing

 

Hehehe
Better yet, dirt bike riding in the forest - no better therapy than that!

 

I live in a forest. It's heaven on a hot summer day. Hell would be stuck in traffic breathing diesel fumes.

 

There's a movie about that called Sea of Trees.

 

It's in the bible. "A fool and his money are soon parted."

It'd be uncool to force people to pay for such a thing. But taking advantage of people's gullibility for cash has a rich history. How do you think religion's work?

 

That's interesting. Quoting the Bible to back a point then bashing religion next breath.

To make that last statement logical, change "religion's" [sic] to churches.

 

(or specify that the religeon being refered to is christianity. although mention of 'the bible' rather clearly implies this)
actually christianity DOES bash itself. that's one of the problems and why it creates so much insanity.
(there are a couple of other major religions that do also, but most of the smaller ones don't)

god, or whatever gods might happen to exist, are completely innocent of (of any and all human beliefs) though.
(or at least, there is no obvious and verifiable connection between them)

at any rate, the whole thing about being out in a forest, out of earshot of human cacaphony,
is not being robbed of the sacredness of the universal wonder of strangeness,
by humans attempting to dictate each other's perceptions.

 

Forests are definitely destressers. They're not strange when one is familiar with them. Flora, fauna, geography,... it is all identifiable and fascinating. We don't lose the thoughts of others trying to dictate our perceptions, but we can dismiss them for what they are.

There's way more misconceptions about "religion" than truths. Most people confuse what others tell them and what they might hear in a church with truth. If somebody makes a claim about Christianity and hasn't read the Bible and can't back up their claim with scripture, it's heresy. Happens a lot!

 

No, japan does not “do everything wrong”.
It does fewer things wrong then the u.s.

When it comes to making things have to be about money, that have no good reason to be,
the two countries are on pretty much an equal parr, with each other.

"took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum".

part of this is so many people who think money the only thing that exists,
and part of it , is so many people, period.

habitat loss because resource waste because so many
habitat loss for species diversity but habitat for mental well being also.

the car as transportation mode wastes a lot, probably most, of it.

therapy yes. but it shouldn't have to be therapy. we evolved in it.
its what we've lost by being too many
and by thinking our species alone the center of the universe
and the reason for everything,
which its not.

 

Hahahaha ya gotta put up the parking lots!!
Childhood memories... I still listen to it, though. We seem to have lost the art of the song.

You have the right idea but there's a couple things you haven't been made aware of.

First, the road to monetary success is not mutually exclusive to being good stewards of the environment. In fact, they go hand in hand. It's essential to maintain an environment that will sustain life, not only that of us humans, but all the supporting structure such as living things which provide our nutrition and a habitat for them to flourish. Screwing the environment is screwing ourselves and our progeny as it ultimately will deplete resources, the opposite of wealth. So to maintain wealth we must maintain the environment.

The car. Cars are a small factor stressing the environment. Take away every last car and it's a small dent. Forest fires, whether prescribed burns, lightning ignited, or careless human activity, are a much greater factor. In congregate, they put many times more pollutants and CO2 into the environment than all the cars combined. Hydrocarbon fueled electric power plants, that's a lot, and maybe more than all the cars. Planes. Boats. Trains. Tractor-tailors. Agricultural equipment. More. That's some major contributions.

But the biggest impact of all?? Deforestation!

You want a cause to rally on which would make a significant difference? Stop clearing so many fookin' trees! Especially in rainforests! But everywhere - cities, yards, farms, utility right-of-ways, etc., etc. Minimize it. Vegetation - That's how CO2 is converted to O2. They use the C to create structure. (which we can burn for heat and send the rest some CO2 to grow with - it's a circle of life) "Save the trees" isn't mostly about maintaining beauty or a place of solace for us to get forest therapy. I mean those things have great value but the most significant reason is to sustain a healthy productive planet to provide us a trouble-free environment in which to carry on our essential and chosen activities!

 

deforestation is also a result of our numbers and our focus on cars and money. also carelessness and indifference toward environment generally.
also driven by the distraction of symbolic value obscuring, for many people, just about everything else.

not that its money itself, nor that we can't have both, but we have allowed it to take the place of looking at anything else.
and flourishing civilizations have existed without guns, slaves or money.

they were also the victims of genocide,
because money based ideologies didn't want their indentures servants who didn't realize they were indentured servants,
to even imagine such a way of life could even be possible, let alone flourish.

its not impossible for such a way of life to defend its stability, now that we know what to expect.

and there's this: how long will humanity as a species be able to perpetuate itself without the environment it evolved in,
one that makes its existence possible?

i'm not saying monetary economics hasn't given us a lot of fun toys to play with, nor that it can't be somehow tamed to behave itself,
but rather, there is an end run around that battle, that every good thing that has come from it, can also exist without it,
and with out the harm, that if not directly caused by, is certainly motivated by it.

and i totally disagree about the impact of how we do transportation, based on the car.
its impact is at least as large, if not slightly larger, then that of how we do energy.

we know how to do energy better, and that's starting to happen, largely because its something we can point fingers at somebody else.
how we do transportation, if we want to survive (and how the hell is anything going to "thrive" without surviving), is something that also needs to be rethought,
and we are just going to have to figure out, accept and live with, that we can't just point fingers, that one is on us.

 

Forest Therapy huh? Looks like the city folks have finally discovered what us hicks have known all our lives.

 

Some of em are us, just having left sticksville for the lure of the coin and limelight. Woohoo. They know forest, they just pretend not to.


Another thing about cars, people think they're "saving the planet" with these electric ones...
They don't spew CO2, unburnt hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, no. But, where do they think the electricity to charge them comes from???

 

Don’t forget about where the nickel, lead, zinc and lithium for the batteries comes from and the disposal of them when wear out.

 

How not to cut down trees...

 

Ouch. Damn physics...

"I'll never use that shit"

Hehehe

 

it CAN come from cleaner sources of energy, the more energy sources converts to them.
putting them on rails would make them more energy efficient.

as does public transportation over personal vehicles.
electric trams and buses, and especially mini-trams;
narrow gauge, people sized railways, propelled by cleanly sourced energy.

and clean energy storage systems are possible too.
chemical batteries aren't the only way of doing that either.

so yes you can have infrastructure, without the crap that comes from burning things.

but of course there's still more to it then that.

there's the problem of having more babies then we die off from old age,
on a finite planet with finite resources.

we need the forest for our mental health, although even deserts have their own life,
that is healthier then the cluster fucks we call cities.

the problem is us, and our misplaced, ill thought out, priorities.

and the best thing we can do for our environment, and thus our mental health, is to drastically reduce the human birthrate,
across the board, without bias nor prejudice.

those are the three big things, energy, transportation, and population.

all of which can be done better, then what is familiar that we assume wrongly to be some sort of ultimate default.

of course we can go on, living in our comfortably familiar ignorance,
and just wait for the ecopocalypse,
to reduce our numbers,
through the slow painful deaths of famine and disease.

 

From power plants that will transition in the coming decades to a more environmentally friendly way of producing said electricity.

 

Great. I'm all for it. Of course that's just an easy thing to say..
Now we just gotta come to terms with it.

Many of the same people screaming bloody murder about the emissions are the same that opposed clean nuclear powered electrical generators. What's it gonna be, folks?

Solar? 250w/m3 of perpendicular surface to unobstructed full-strength sunlight.

Wind? I'd put one up but the municipality will have nothing of it. Don't they kill birds? Make noise?

Always something. What ever happened to hydroelectric? There are whole countries supplied this way. We have mountain rivers. Why don't we do a lot more of that?