I've always been bothered by rly "black and white" mindsets when it comes to morality and how the world works (and there have been plenty of other discussions abt the problematic implications of the specific "light vs dark" debate in relation to imperialism etc. etc. so I'll leave that as it is), but the one specific dichotomy that ALWAYS gets under my skin is anything relating to life/death (or, as FR here puts it, nature/plague).
this may have more to do w/ me growing into a very environmentally-conscious mindset, but it's just rly silly (and downright insulting) to think of death/decay as inherently "bad" and life/growth as inherently "good". I mean, what is life w/o death, or growth w/o decay? they're, essentially, opposite sides of the same coin. matter is neither created nor destroyed (as far as basic molecular science goes), thus any creation or destruction is simply a change from one state of being to another, so it's just so silly to me when people try to apply some kinda morality to that??? ANYTHING in excess can be a bad thing (think of what so often causes dead zones-- eutrophication!), there simply aren't ethical implications to the natural processes of life and death???
and honestly, this isn't a dig at FR at all (I actually think they did a good job at figuring out flights that would work well both on their own and as rivals to other specific flights, particularly in dominance), but just /in general/ I HATE it when life and death are pitted against one another. like, one piece of media that srsly bothered me was that one movie a few years back, Epic. it wasn't all that popular, so I don't doubt that not a lot of people have seen it, but it just pushed that whole, "GROWTH OF NATURE IS GOOD AND PURE, ROT AND DECAY IS BAD AND EVIL" thing SOOO much, I was honestly yelling the whole time, like, "WELL WHO'S GONNA ROT AWAY ALL YOUR DEAD CARCASSES, HUH?? DO U ALL PLAN ON LIVING AMONG THE DEAD BODIES OF UR LOVED ONES FOREVER?? WHAT ABOUT LAND MANAGEMENT, HOW DO U PLAN ON KEEPING YOUR POPULATIONS IN CHECK???"
/HUFFHUFF/ IDK LONG RANT, I just want to know if I'm the only one that gets so riled up abt this, aha
this may have more to do w/ me growing into a very environmentally-conscious mindset, but it's just rly silly (and downright insulting) to think of death/decay as inherently "bad" and life/growth as inherently "good". I mean, what is life w/o death, or growth w/o decay? they're, essentially, opposite sides of the same coin. matter is neither created nor destroyed (as far as basic molecular science goes), thus any creation or destruction is simply a change from one state of being to another, so it's just so silly to me when people try to apply some kinda morality to that??? ANYTHING in excess can be a bad thing (think of what so often causes dead zones-- eutrophication!), there simply aren't ethical implications to the natural processes of life and death???
and honestly, this isn't a dig at FR at all (I actually think they did a good job at figuring out flights that would work well both on their own and as rivals to other specific flights, particularly in dominance), but just /in general/ I HATE it when life and death are pitted against one another. like, one piece of media that srsly bothered me was that one movie a few years back, Epic. it wasn't all that popular, so I don't doubt that not a lot of people have seen it, but it just pushed that whole, "GROWTH OF NATURE IS GOOD AND PURE, ROT AND DECAY IS BAD AND EVIL" thing SOOO much, I was honestly yelling the whole time, like, "WELL WHO'S GONNA ROT AWAY ALL YOUR DEAD CARCASSES, HUH?? DO U ALL PLAN ON LIVING AMONG THE DEAD BODIES OF UR LOVED ONES FOREVER?? WHAT ABOUT LAND MANAGEMENT, HOW DO U PLAN ON KEEPING YOUR POPULATIONS IN CHECK???"
/HUFFHUFF/ IDK LONG RANT, I just want to know if I'm the only one that gets so riled up abt this, aha