The Naked Ramblers

[Kether]

Recently, two 'naturists' decided to walk from one end of Britain to the other, wearing nothing but boots and rucksacks. When interviewed, they said that what was 'natural' was always good, and if people returned to 'nature' they would be better people.
I'm inclined to disagree. For one thing, it is satisfaction of wants that makes us happy - and the majority of people want to be warm. Clothes satisfy that want.
Secondly, although many people, Rousseau and Lao-tzu among them, have advocated a return to nature, they have differed over what they consider natural. It would be natural for humans to be completely naked, to never utilise fire or use tools, and to eat completely raw food. But neither philosopher, and not even the naked ramblers, have considered this desirable. Rousseau did not consider carriages an abomination; Lao-tzu, living as he did centuries earlier, did. But Lao-tzu was not against clothes. The naked ramblers are, but still cooked their food and slept in tents.
This leads me to the conclusion that, with the possible exception of nudists, people who believe in what is natural are really only conservatives. They are against new 'violations' of nature, but not those of earlier centuries.
I shouldn't think that early humans were happy about constantly living on the edge. That sort of lifestlyle has always led to fatalism and passive awe of nature, instead of more modern attitudes of cultivation and manipulation of it to suit the needs of humanity.

[sahyo]

instead of more modern attitudes of cultivation and manipulation of it to suit the needs of humanity.



like poluted...air... soil...water...food ?

[WilliamMckeehan]

interesting ... i dont agree with the naked ramblers humans can never go back to nature sence the beginning of humanity humans have been trying to better there lives that is are nature this makes humans natural are nature i will say i think humans should be naked running around eating raw food but that will never happen are brians are too developed to do this we try everything possible to make it easyer/better/more enjoyable so maybe humans are be natural this is what we have always done it is what we always will do even if if we wanted to go back to nature its is WAY! too late

-Will :thumbsup:

[scameter]

I love naturism. Not to say that i do it unfortunately, but i love the theory and the people's courage to practice it. But to me, as i once read in a book titled Nature First, what we call "natural" we actually mean wild, in that there is no human interaction or influence, but that the practices and laws and original aspects of nature are allowed to take hold entirely. For instance, a cow pasture is less natural/wild then a never before seen creek in, say, Canada, because the pasture was made, influenced, and cultivated by humanity, and the latter, the creek in Canada, wasn't. I know this will start much debate, which is good, but please, read the book Nature First by Thomas McNamee, at least i think that's his name. The subtitle is Keeping our wild places Wild. :)

[Kether]

You've got the wrong image of my views on nature, Scameter. I see nothing wrong with humans using nature, provided that nature is not harmed by this relationship. And I absolutely hate the kind of ecological vandalism which you give as an example of 'cultivation' of nature.

Don't get me wrong. Nudity isn't hurting anyone (except possibly its practitioners when it gets cold) and I greatly admire these people's courage, their ability to do what they want without fear of social dissaproval.

[Smurf]

Kether: provided that nature is not harmed by this relationship
hah that's funny

and also i find it funny that they think going back to nature by just taking their clothes off i don't think so. humans can live happily alongside nature wearing clothes and using tools. i mean are there not animals out there a part of "nature" that use tools?

[scameter]

Yes, like apes. And too it is just as natural for apes to as it is for humans to. But, it is also natural for certain people to want to express their physical beauty to other people. I personally love it, and not just for sexuality. I mean because to me the human body is just as beautiful as any other animal's body(again not sexually). And to me if you want to express that in a nonarrogant way then have at it. :)

And Kether: "Don't get me wrong. Nudity isn't hurting anyone (except possibly its practitioners when it gets cold) and I greatly admire these people's courage, their ability to do what they want without fear of social dissaproval."....but?

[Kether]

I'm not saying that what they're doing is in any way immoral or wrong, I'm just saying that some of their basic ideas about nature might not be true.

[scameter]

Like what?

[Thomas Knierim]

Dare to go bare...?

Most naturists are pretty ding-dong.

The maximum exposure of one's skin just enhances the effects of the elements, UV radiation, insects, and collisions. Naturists blather about "back to nature" and "overcoming conventions" when those conventions and restrictions primarily exist in their minds. Obviously these are not automatically discarded along with the clothes. It's just not that easy. There are aesthetic considerations, too. If you look at an average nudist beach in Spain (or anywhere in Europe), you would probably agree that most people who inhabit these places look far better with clothes on.

Then again, sometimes people need to do something ding-dong.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

y'all should go check out Dots' pix

[scameter]

Yes you're probably right Thomas; but i admiring them for looking at the human body as naturally beautiful, instead of the usual view of just looking at it and thinking, if you're a woman or man, Wow, i'd love to **** that.

[Smurf]

:D :thumbsup:

[scameter]

Seriously, that's what i think about their views. :rolleyes: :D

[Smurf]

oh yeah i hate all of those self righteous arrogant macho poo heads

[Smurf]

well gtg talk soon :thumbsup:

[kskf]

It appears that "nature" is defined as a space where there is no human or which has never / seldem been influenced by human. But is human a product of nature just as animals are? Animals do have minds, and their will for changing the world (though to a smaller scale than done by human) for achieving their own good is just similar to what human constantly practices. Animals do have a certan degree of intellectual ability (in terms of their knowledge about the world "external" to their bodies, such as avoidance of dangers from the hunter species, fire, thunderstorm, etc.) although their such ability is less sophisticated (as measures accordingly to on human's own value and criteria) than human. Lao Zi admires nature not because he hates human but he hates the manner in which human utilizes their ability. After all, Lao Zi did not advocate the extinction of all human, nor did he endorse the elimination of other human beings to "release" more "natural space" of the remaining / surviving human beings. The extinction or elimination should of course not be achieved by artificial means but even if they are acheived by "natural" means, I cannot find any evidence showing Lao Zi would approve this. For example, I haven't heard that Lao Zi disapproves the use of man-invented medical treatment to cure illed people, or the saving of someone you have noticed to have just fallen into a well. The "corrected" response to these situations according to Lao Zi should be: to do what you "naturally" would do and do not deliberately direct your mind to solve the issue. This is similar to the main theme of Bhagava Gita: thou shalt act according to the dharma -- you should do what you should do. Neither Lao Zi nor Gita expressly says what one "should" do is, but they never disapprove human per se. Nature and human are not enemies. Only the misdirection of human mind or ability is to be condemned. Being naked may be natural, but wearing clothes may as well be natural (after all this ability to make clothes and wear clothes was developed "naturally" by human being when their sphere of living was expanded from the tropical area to the temperate region or even the artic region thousands and millions of years ago long before they have developed any idea of social norm, shyness, etc.). Human is a "natural element" of nature. Therefore, human influence should not all be viewed as anti-natural. Otherwsie, it is the same as saying that nature gives rise to something not-natural which creates influences to destroy nature. But if this is the case, why couldn't one think that the "natural development path" of "nature" is self-destruction? What's wrong if nature "naturally" tends to self-destruction?

I am not saying this is what "nature" really is. I just want to point out that if we are not part of nature, what value (if any) should be attached to our view on what nature is or should be? And if we are part of nature, what we should or should not do to follow and/or practice the "natural rules"?

[sahyo]

thinking, if you're a woman or man, Wow, i'd love to **** that.

...thinking...

Seriously, that's what i think about their views.

...thinking...


;)

[scameter]

Hmm...you have an odd way of putting things Asheera :o :D

[sahyo]

heehee

:D

[Smurf]

but beautiful :thumbsup: and simple