Nicolas Pol - Response to Class 4

The backpacker vs. the farmer was one of the larger concepts that we explored in the end of the semester. 

To explain this, the backpacker loves nature chastely, as he (or she) wanders through nature solely for the appreciation of its beauty. 

The farmer, however, loves nature for the promise of offspring. There is almost something "rapacious" about this relationship, as the farmer is the only one that benefits off of this relationship. 

With the backpacker, though, the relationship remains equal. Additionally, the backpacker only enters places that offer hospitality, meaning that there is no exchange of currency or labor for the backpacker. After all, a key concept of the backpacker is that he can move through space without having to contribute to the economic systems of society. 

This concept of the backpacker is especially explored in Chapter 28 of Ecology of Eden, as it discusses the possibility of reclaiming Arcadia. If more people were to follow the model of the backpacker, then societies would be able to shift more towards being the strict binary of cities and wilderness, as more nomadic people would mean less of a need for housing. 

I would argue that most of us live in the lifestyle of the farmer. Even though none of us grow crops, we mentally follow the system of earning money for the "fruits of our labor." Everything is monetizable in society. Nothing is monetizable to the backpacker, because there is no price to the beauty of nature. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest Bathing

Sabrina Ho--cities

Danielle Hawkins- Mnt. of Spices