My school is offering a program/grant for students interested in working with non-profit organizations that relate to their studies.
I was wondering if there are org. in contingency with Habitat for Humanity (one that works with the local community to build community) anywhere around the world? I am interested in working in somewhere in the wild..(silly way to word this but environment like the amazon, nature..untouched by high-technology-to study sustainability)
natematt
Dec 29, 22 12:42 pm
Generally if you're going to be working on building buildings in untouched nature that is the opposite of sustainability.
There are plenty of non-profits out there working on housing, but maybe not so much in the context you are looking for...
x-jla
Dec 30, 22 1:15 pm
This sentiment is the opposite of sustainability
x-jla
Dec 30, 22 1:26 pm
Until humans begin to view themselves as part of nature, rather than some disease upon it, and start viewing the environment as a garden with cultivation potential, rather than some deity, we will not reach a true sustainability. There is no such thing as touched and untouched nature. Everything is nature. Kuddies driven sustainability is a fools errand. Reaching a homeostatic state between planned and spontaneous occurring ecological systems ought to be the goal. To do so, we need to view the biosphere as a garden, and ourselves as master gardeners…not because of some manifest destiny, but because to do so means increasing our own ability to survive and thrive. This is the truest and purest part of being human. Transforming environments to enhance survival. Worship of virgin forest is sort of paganism. We need to focus on the scientific, and put the dogmatic aside if we are going to survive long term.
natematt
Dec 31, 22 12:59 am
If everything is nature, why bother building in the amazon (or similar environments)? Lets focus on building in that nature over there that’s already been built on, has infrastructure, has context for community… That seems more pragmatic than dogmatic to me.
x-jla
Jan 1, 23 12:46 pm
Because we need to modify the environment to survive/thrive. We should build in a way that is more ecologically sound, which doesn’t necessarily mean to create hard edges between the built and wild lands. I’m suggesting more of a interconnected urbanization.
Hello everyone
My school is offering a program/grant for students interested in working with non-profit organizations that relate to their studies.
I was wondering if there are org. in contingency with Habitat for Humanity (one that works with the local community to build community) anywhere around the world? I am interested in working in somewhere in the wild..(silly way to word this but environment like the amazon, nature..untouched by high-technology-to study sustainability)
Generally if you're going to be working on building buildings in untouched nature that is the opposite of sustainability.
There are plenty of non-profits out there working on housing, but maybe not so much in the context you are looking for...
This sentiment is the opposite of sustainability
Until humans begin to view themselves as part of nature, rather than some disease upon it, and start viewing the environment as a garden with cultivation potential, rather than some deity, we will not reach a true sustainability. There is no such thing as touched and untouched nature. Everything is nature. Kuddies driven sustainability is a fools errand. Reaching a homeostatic state between planned and spontaneous occurring ecological systems ought to be the goal. To do so, we need to view the biosphere as a garden, and ourselves as master gardeners…not because of some manifest destiny, but because to do so means increasing our own ability to survive and thrive. This is the truest and purest part of being human. Transforming environments to enhance survival. Worship of virgin forest is sort of paganism. We need to focus on the scientific, and put the dogmatic aside if we are going to survive long term.
If everything is nature, why bother building in the amazon (or similar environments)? Lets focus on building in that nature over there that’s already been built on, has infrastructure, has context for community… That seems more pragmatic than dogmatic to me.
Because we need to modify the environment to survive/thrive. We should build in a way that is more ecologically sound, which doesn’t necessarily mean to create hard edges between the built and wild lands. I’m suggesting more of a interconnected urbanization.