Previous Article | Back to News Summary | Next Article
Public News Post #19877

A Humble Reply to a Modest Proposal

Written by: Breath of the Desert, Foehn Anemides
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016
Addressed to: Guardian Achimrst Van Helsing-Sar'vet


To Knot Achimrst Van Helsing-Sar'vet, of the Scions of Nature, of Eleusis, of the Twin Ladies of Nature:

Allow me to begin by applauding your initiative. Long has Eleusis waged a retaliatory campaign against the expansion of sentient cultures reliant upon alternative means of survival in this dangerous and thrilling world. Particularly following the reawakening of the Twin Ladies and the Renaissance of Achaea, Eleusis has redefined its purpose as guardians of Nature, and has begun to push back against the apparent encroachment of flagstone and steel upon its verdant borders. Now you have spread your diplomatic missives across the land, seeking alternative, cooperative solutions with those whom you claim have wronged the green earth. Well done, Achimrst; you have taken an important step in what is surely an unending conflict.

The Eleusians have my utmost respect for thriving within a supposed symbiosis with Nature, existing within a living village and leaving no footprint upon the forest floor. Such a lifestyle surely entails great compromise yet offers equally great reward, specifically in the fulfillment one attains from living in harmony with the surrounding natural environment. While I am not necessarily envious of such a lifestyle, I can understand and to some extent admire its perpetuation.

Yet I must humbly tell you, Achimrst, that yours is a foolish campaign. I urge you to read on, as I seek not to disparage your efforts but to aid you in (as you yourself claimed in the half-dozen missives I found and memorized) your search for understanding.

Firstly, one's foremost question in such a debate is to resolve the place of sentient life within Nature. As a proponent of its best interests, you have pressed the idea of tearing down stone structures all across the land, digging up infrastructure throughout our long-established thoroughfares, and ultimately allowing Nature to reclaim all the earth in a veritable leafy tsunami. Forgive me the dramatics, but the penultimate result you strive to attain is, as you have stated, a verdant land springing up where cities once stood. With the Eleusian way of life as your model, you claim that sentient beings everywhere can learn to exist in such environments, and urge us to cast aside mortar and brick in exchange for wood and leather.

And yet, what becomes then of sentient life? Is the purpose of all thinking existence to commit itself towards the defense and perpetuation of Nature? I must humbly disagree, as this singular focus would then prove to stunt that very growth you so highly exalt. Not all that grows is green, and that sentience itself thrives so in such varied environments is proof enough that its growth parallels its surroundings. Just as the wolf consumes the deer, the fox the hen, the serpent the egg and so on, sentient life consumes the resources provided by Nature to build itself a home--a nest, if you will--in which it can further develop. To commit itself wholly to the service of Nature is to restrict and limit sentience's very means to have branching forms of thought, philosophy, art--indeed, the very cornerstones of culture. Should we as sentient beings cast aside our own natures in order to serve the forests? And if so, what then becomes of our own right to growth? Or does sentient life exist outside of Nature, and thus bear no such right? You may do well to question the singular focus of the Scions, for if you live and die without self-reflection, without growth, then you are not even comparable to the trees you protect. Rather, without seeking out growth of your own, I fear you place yourself outside of Nature, a paradox to your very existence. Such a relationship is not symbiotic, but rather parasitic--with Nature feeding off your devotion to protect itself.

This, of course, leads to our second point: what, then, is Nature? You seem to believe that Nature exists solely within greenery, despite decrying the gardens that you yourself acknowledge within the walls of our cities. You argue that the placing of stone upon earth is a necromantic ritual intended to act as a form of extermination, yet later go on to suggest that such stones will eventually crumble, allowing natural growth to overwhelm them. Where is the "extermination" here? I, for one, have borne witness to the hardiness of Nature in the form flowers push between cobblestones and vines creeping up brick walls. It is my firm belief that Nature will find a way, especially if all that purportedly stands in its way is a stone slab. On the Western Isle, for example, Nature seems to have taken the Seven Truths to heart, and ferocious, carnivorous plants take dubious root in the crimson soil. In the caverns of Azdun, creeper vines do far more than simply absorb nutrients from the soil. "Green" comes in many forms, and it adapts to its environment much as we do.

But is that Nature's limit? Does Nature not find splendor and being in the mountains that reach for the skies, the rivers that run through the lands, and the volcanoes that belch forth ash and fire? Are not the stones we lay upon the ground carved from the very earth? Nature provides all that we have used to build our homes, forge our weapons, and archive our knowledge. You suggest that wood and leather could substitute our stone and steel, yet it comes from the same earth. Our alchemist mix minerals gathered from the dirt, and use ingredients harvested from the land to combine them into things that would not naturally occur, yet none of the aspects of their alchemical recipes are otherworldly. I've yet to see a healing elixir rain down from the skies or spring forth from the earth; how then are alchemical tinctures any different? I would argue that Nature is more pervasive than you give it credit for, and that one as open-minded as yourself could ask himself whether or not he is examining Nature from every available angle.

Lastly, I must ask you to reconsider your approach. To ask that we allow our buildings to fall into ruin is not altogether unreasonable, if ours were finite existences. Yet even beasts of the land acknowledge the importance of the future, perpetuating their existences through their offspring and placing great importance upon the need to reproduce. Birds have been known to use empty nests for new clutches, and even ants serve their queens before themselves, in order to ensure the continued survival of their colonies. Our sentient races are only slightly different, with an urge to ensure the survival of not only our children, but our ways of life. Even though there are some in my own home who might dismiss such an instinct as foolhardy and pointless, there is no denying that it is a drive that permeates all who dwell within Nature. Some feel it is something to be overcome, others that it is a call to be answered, and yet it is there all the same. To ask us to set aside the drive to preserve our future is tantamount to asking the bear to set aside its fangs, or the bees their honey.

Let Lady Artemis reign over all that falls to ruin, and let Lady Gaia reign over all that buds and blooms. Fight your wars against flagstone and brick, Achimrst. But if you seek to propose a diplomatic solution, reconsider your approach. And do not so quickly dismiss the nature of sentient life.

Sincerely,
Foehn Anemides

Penned by my hand on the 15th of Lupar, in the year 719 AF.


Previous Article | Back to News Summary | Next Article