Outlander,
The wise men I speak of were pretty distressed by the end of the world they knew, even if they were able, to make sense of their world's end- and in some ways - sow the seeds of the next one. They weren't quite as serene as whoever it is you are quoting. Here are two wise men worth listening to.

Here's Pliny the Younger, witnessing the sudden, violent destruction of Pompeii:

“In the darkness you could hear the crying of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men. Some prayed for help. Others wished for death. But still more imagined that there were no Gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness.”

And here's Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse Five, an eyewitness to the firebombing of Dresdent:

“It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like "Poo-tee-weet?”

In your defense, the "all things come and pass" view was one the main character of that novel, Billy Pilgrim, ultimately seemed forced to take, wtih the inhuman Tralfamadoreans (sp?), but it seemed to cost him his sanity, and his freedom. While the aliens may represent the embodiment of eternal wisdom, Billy himself, war-damaged survivor that he was, became a pet in their alien zoo.

Wise men who have seen even "mere" cities end seem to be far more affected by events similar to the unreal things we may soon be forced to see than we might anticipate. Does no-one remember the the rain of falling people from the twin towers? How might we also be affected by the repetition of these scenes across countless cities?

When worlds end, worldviews go with them - doubtless, in no small part due to the images burning in the minds of those who saw things they never wish to tell, but cannot unsee. So, while it's day, shouldn't we be collecting, testing, and distilling durable meaning, instead of arguing over whether or not we believe it will ever get dark?

Agreed, CM - what is your understanding of what the recovery process from such a worldview might be?

I've often heard of it - and was tempted to take a loo. A child of the 80's, I was a bit skittish about watching another The Day After, but I should be able to handle it now. Now I just need to find the time away from my 6 year old :)

Seriously, Tom? I only gave diagnoses when asked, and even then, I didn't do it for free. Among philosophers, let's keep this a diagnosis free zone. I'll assume you're writing in good faith - I just ask you return the courtesy.

I didn't mention burning people just for shock value - my grandfather died fighting those who burned millions - including much of my extended Jewish family. It's not hyperbole, and if you want to research the frequency of people burning when an empire, or Reich, or teikoku, falls, please - be my guest. Cities on fire is the insignia of the Fall. It's what happens.

That said, I'm a firefighter and as a clinical counselor spent several months on various disaster relief deployments - mostly hurricanes. Believe me, I'm not writing to dramatize. It's just wise to remember the fires are real - and imagine, if you haven't experienced it - what collapse actually smells like.

Last thought for the night: Has anyone read Timothy Morton? My wife studied him and there seem to be some resonance between his work and the work I was looking to start. Anyone read him and could help me understand him? See below if you want a quick intro.

https://biotoopia.ee/timothy-morton-and-the-end-of-the-world/

It's just wise to remember the fires are real - and imagine, if you haven't experienced it - what collapse actually smells like. — Joshua Jones

As it happens, I live in one of the most fire prone areas on earth and many people I know have lost homes and family, including in the Black Saturday fires of 2009 which killed 173 people. I am familiar with the sound of sirens and having minutes to get out of my home. My family suffered in Europe during the war and my father spent three years in a Nazi camp. My own background is 30 plus years working in substance abuse, suicide risk intervention and acute mental health services in a city of 5 million people. I have specialised in services for the homeless and Aboriginal Australians amongst other things. I have seen almost every possible type of human misery going. I still don't buy your Apocalyptical Roadshow. Sorry JJ.

Please see above for the numerous invitations to those who disagree to follow other threads. . For those who know, no evidence for my premise is needed, For those who don't, no evidence for my premise will help. As great as your appetite seems to be, I didn't post here merely to disagree with others regarding with my reasons for posting here.

Please see above for the numerous invitations to those who disagree to follow other threads. — Joshua Jones

I understand this and need no invitation to leave when I am not engaged by a thread. Is this a polite way of you saying "fuck off" perhaps? Given that philosophy pretty much hinges on disagreement and critical discourse, your response seems avoidant, or perhaps fearful of difference.

But hey, don't worry, I have no intention of trolling you. I am responding in what you call "good faith".

For those who know, no evidence for my premise is needed, For those who don't, no evidence for my premise will help. — Joshua Jones

In philosophy this kind of argument, an appeal to self-evident truth, is not really very sound now, is it? It's one of those holding statements so beloved of Christian Apologists when they describe the realm beyond reason, of faith and certainty, that Jesus died for them. "I know!" they declare.

Your premise would benefit from deeper examination and some push back. That's all I am really saying. And I bear you no ill will.

I share the OP's feeling of a world disappearing.

According to The Sermon on the Fall of Rome, a novel by Jérôme Ferrari, men do not necessarily notice a big or sudden change when their world crumbles. (By "a world" he means some structured polity making some philosophical sense to its members -- a self-meaningful society, not the physical world). Sometimes they do not even notice anything, and they keep living without a world around them. So Romans kept living once Rome was no more.

It's a complex book, relating the slow decomposition of a charming universe created around a village bar managed by two young friends in Corsica. This is presented in a historical perspective, with the collapse of the French colonial empire as well as that of the Roman empire always in the background. The book chapters are titled after sentences taken from The City of God of Augustine, and in particular his Sermon on the fall of Rome, pronounced after the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410.

“In the darkness you could hear the crying of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men. Some prayed for help. Others wished for death. But still more imagined that there were no Gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness.” — Joshua Jones

Heh, sounds like a typical day of marriage. Really though, horror and tragedy is no laughing matter. Though neither is it so esoteric or rare it warrants some odd obsession. The greater horror would be a life without the possibility of any of these things, for at least with possibility of tragedy and loss comes appreciation of peace and gain.

When worlds end, worldviews go with them — Joshua Jones

They seem to be alive and quite well thanks to you. Perhaps you mean the unspoken intentions that are left up to interpretation of any who would come across them. In either case it would seem all bases are covered.

So, while it's day, shouldn't we be collecting, testing, and distilling durable meaning, instead of arguing over whether or not we believe it will ever get dark? — Joshua Jones

I don't think anyone would disagree, in fact this is how society (at times begrudgingly) works. That's why horror movies and roller coasters aren't boring, and in fact are some of the most exciting things we can view or experience without the actual presence of impending death.

It's a common belief that some of the "best" or most enthralling writings, creations, and acts are when one is forced to confront one's own mortality. You pose the question of why must the "swan song" outperform the dance of life, not an automatically mundane and uneventful one just a consistent and stable one. It's a fair question. I'm sure there's a fair answer. What makes you believe there isn't?

Agreed, CM - what is your understanding of what the recovery process from such a worldview might be? — Joshua Jones

I'm not sure I completely understand the question. Are you asking for what the recovery process from the worldview would be, as if the worldview is the sickness? Or are you asking what the recovery process for such a world would look like?

I'm assuming the former, though I'm not sure I agree with the idea that it is something that one needs "to recover from"... maybe i'd rather say "cope with"?

Though I think I always had the intuition somehow that this world was not to last, it only recently fully and consciously dawned on me. Since I'm still very much in the process of re-calibrating and adjusting to a new horizon so to speak... maybe it is to early for me to say how to best deal with it.

Or maybe that is precisely how one starts to deals with it, by re-evaluating and adjusting ones plans and values so that they re-align with a fundamentally changed future. Yes, that's how I will be starting I guess, by committing to what I think I know... and re-evaluating things in light of that, which will probably take a good while.

I've often heard of it - and was tempted to take a loo. A child of the 80's, I was a bit skittish about watching another The Day After, but I should be able to handle it now. Now I just need to find the time away from my 6 year old — Joshua Jones

It's not brutal at all. Just sad and a bit uplifting at the end. Those Australians, all stiff upper lip and all.

Here's Pliny the Younger, witnessing the sudden, violent destruction of Pompeii:

“In the darkness you could hear the crying of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men. Some prayed for help. Others wished for death. But still more imagined that there were no Gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness.” — Joshua Jones

Strange as it may sound, there are those who secretly relish apocalyptic fantasies, who want to hear nothing but tragic news (one could call it ‘doom porn’) . The motives for such thinking are varied, but one cannot rule out a secret desire to bring down the high and mighty in order to exact revenge.

When worlds end, worldviews go with them - doubtless, in no small part due to the images burning in the minds of those who saw things they never wish to tell, but cannot unsee. So, while it's day, shouldn't we be collecting, testing, and distilling durable meaning, instead of arguing over whether or not we believe it will ever get dark? — Joshua Jones

Here’s some durable meaning from Nietzsche that may or may not be apropos here.

“ The beginning of the slaves’ revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those beings who, denied the proper response of action, compensate for it only with imaginary revenge. Whereas all noble morality grows out of a tri­umphant saying ‘yes’ to itself, slave morality says ‘no’ on principle to everything that is ‘outside’, ‘other’, ‘non-self ’: and this ‘no’ is its creative deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance – this essential orientation to the outside instead of back onto itself – is a feature of ressentiment: in order to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external world, it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all, – its action is basically a reaction.”

“ The blessed in the heavenly kingdom will see the torment of the damned so that they may even more thoroughly enjoy their blessedness.” Thomas Aquinas

“But there are yet other spectacles: that final and everlasting day of judgement, that day that was not expected and was even laughed at by the nations, when the whole old world and all it gave birth to are consumed in one fire. What an ample breadth of sights there will be then! At which one shall I gaze in wonder? At which shall I laugh? At which rejoice? At which exult, when I see so many great kings who were proclaimed to have been taken up into heaven, groaning in the deepest darkness together with those who claimed to have wit­nessed their apotheosis and with Jove himself. And when I see those [provincial] governors, persecutors of the Lord’s name, melting in flames more savage than those with which they insolently raged against Christians! When I see those wise philosophers who persuaded their disciples that nothing was of any concern to God and who affirmed to them either
that we have no souls or that our souls will not return to their original bodies! Now they are ashamed before those disciples, as they are burned together with them. Also the poets trembling before the tribunal not of Minos or of Radamanthus, but of the unexpected Christ! Then the tragic actors will be easier to hear because they will be in better voice [i.e. screaming even louder] in their own tragedy. Then the actors of pantomime will be easy to recognize, being much more nimble than usual because of the fire. Then the charioteer will be on view, all red in a wheel of flame and the athletes, thrown not in the gymnasia but into the fire. Unless even then I don’t want to see them [alive +], preferring to cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against the Lord.”(Tertullian)

Is the end of religion considered an apocalyptic view?

I was thinking of a book around apocalypse's and it came to mind.

Interesting question, John - is the end of the world the end (as in purpose) of religion? Or is it the other way around - is it the end of religion that some see as the end (as in purpose) of the world?

This is why for a conversation, acceptance of my premise is so necessary - that the end of the world is here. "The end" - as in completion or final state - of anything is deeply connected to the purpose of that thing. This is why apocalypse has the multiple meanings of "final moment" as well as "unveiling". Deep contradiction there - if it's veiled, how is it ending? Has it even begun? And what is over and done with, exactly, except the covering?

I wish I could answer it - but which ends which is one to ponder. Does the world end the religious viewpoint, or does the religious viewpoint rest on the end of the world?

I don't quite understand though what book you meant...

Perhaps, Joshs, that's true. Some people do have a perverse desire to see harm inflicted on anyone else, whether or not they deserve it. But wouldn't you agree, that in principle, justice requires that people who have inlficted suffering on others have suffering inflicted on them?

Perhaps the apocalypse satisfies that need. It also may satisfy a need not for justice, but for mere simplicity, and the end of perplexity.

Question for you, though - do you think that all apocalyptic views were developed for personal psychological needs or self-justification? How can one tell genuine eschatological prophetic views* from "doom porn"?

*For the purposes of this conversation let's provisionally agree they exist - say someone last Thursday night in Mayfield, Kentucky had nightmarish views of the future

quote="Joshua Jones;630465"]This is why for a conversation, acceptance of my premise is so necessary - that the end of the world is here.[/quote]

That is not an invitation to discuss philosophy. You are looking for people to agree with you on something you have already decided is right. Don't you think that's intellectually dishonest?

To everyone else that's like saying, "Its important that you accept the notion that unicorns exist before we talk about the magical powers they use."

Here's Pliny the Younger, witnessing the sudden, violent destruction of Pompeii: — Joshua Jones

Now this is a good example. But where do you see this happening today?

You started with,

Now that we seem to have quite definitely arrived at “the end of the world as we know it”, engines stopped, steam wafting through the air, conductors absent, and doors open, I’m not feeling fine. — Joshua Jones

Where do you see violent destruction happening? Where is the end of the world like Pompei? If you want people on a philosophy board to discuss with you seriously, back up your premises when people ask you to provide evidence for them.

It was a book around a town that was struggling with spirituality. Apocalyptic in a very minute sense.

Which ends which...I guess it is pretty paradoxical.

Forgive me if I misconstrue your words, but I don't exactly understand how the completion/end of a thing results in its purpose. I mean, It's been long said that what matters is the journey, not the destination.

Well, here are a few logs for the fire that may help to shine some light on the logical architecture of the end of the world. References are easily searchable but included here for easy reference.

One of the axioms that guide this thread is "as above, so below"[1] that there are powerful, even determinative correlations between micro and macro.

Another is MLK Jr's famous line, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" [2]- that regarding certain universals, its presence or absence in any part qualitatively affects the whole.

The final one is this, from Talmud: Why was man created alone? Is it not true that the creator could have created the whole of humanity? But man was created alone to teach you that whoever kills one life kills the world entire, and whoever saves one life saves the world entire.[3]

You may not agree with any of the above, but each of these axioms has an admirable pedigree. Add mortality to any or all of them, and you get eschatology - which - like all fields of inquiry - presumes the existence of the subject. Those of you, like Philosophym, who equate end times with unicorns, will be unhappy here, or maybe just want to be contentious, thinking that contention leads to enlightenment. That's not how I read great philosophers - they build on foundations, posit further axioms, and develop them in concert with others. Argument means logical structure, not necessarily conflict. Ask a geometer to prove that points exist, and you miss the whole science and art. It's similar with eschatology.

But it's also *really* different. Say, "I'm dying", and it's common to get expressions of sympathy, or at least interest*. Say, "The world is dying", and it's common to get "speak for yourself."(See above). You might remember Cassandra, cursed with perfect knowledge of the future and universal incredullity. So, a good question is: What good does it do, even if true, to discuss how things change at the end of the world?

I believe a world of good, but that's what we're here to find out, and I think it's quite doable. Let's start. For example, one of the things that happen at the end of the world is a routine violation of basic human rights. One true story that sticks with me is a feverish man in a German camp that reaches out from his barracks to get an icicle from the overhang to quench his thirst. The guard, seeing this, knocks the icicle into the snowbank. The man, near his end, asks the guard "Why?" The German says in response, "Why? There is no why here."

If there is a "why" to common human decency that matters to us now, if similar encounters await us, how will we survive the loss of it? Or do you have a "why" that you believe will endure, and keep you a decent human?


*unless everyone around you is dying, when they will likely say "Shut up about it already" There's a memorable Simpsons episode where the family has all been turned into delicious treats with bites out of them, sitting in the fridge. Bart asks, "Am I the only one here in horrible pain?" Homer says, "No, but you're the only one who won't shut up about it."
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_above,_so_below#:~:text=%22As%20above%2C%20so%20it%20is,visible%20or%20invisible%20to%20astronomers . (fascinating history there)
[2]https://tssw.tulane.edu/news/injustice-anywhere-threat-justice-everywhere
[3]https://www.ushmm.org/remember/holocaust-reflections-testimonies/echoes-of-memory/to-save-the-world-entire

The dual connotations of the end of the world have to do with the dual meanings of the word itself - "end". In Greek, this is telos - as a field, it's teleology - which is purpose-oriented inquiry. This connection comes up in all kinds of ways. It's not merely semantic - if you are willing to adopt the eschatological view, the end doesn't result in the purpose, the end is completely identified with the purpose.

The end of the road is necessarily where the road is headed, or the purpose of the road. I don't really undestand the idea that it's "only the journey that matters." - isn't the destination integral to that journey? How can one possibly enjoy a journey to a miserable end?

Don't be clouded by the apocalyptic visions of Christianity, That is but one vision, which lacks the unrestrained positivity inherent in other traditions.

In the end everything will be perfect. If things aren't perfect, it must not be the end — Hanover

Man, Hanover’s stuff hasn’t received any credit. As we all kind’a know, apocalypse is the Ancient Greek term for “uncovering or disclosure (naturally, regarding what is)” - and, as such, is closely related to the Ancient Greek term for truth, “aletheia”, which literally means “that which is not hidden/covered/closed off to one's notice”. Soooo … the religious interpretation of an/the apocalypse is that of, to paraphrase (I think), a disclosure to all of that all elusive absolute truth that some talk of.

Christianity interprets this uncovering of absolute truth to be linked to lots of suffering prior to its full realization (except, of course, for those who’ll be beamed up to divinity as a shortcut … not giving a hoot about the suffering of those that aren’t, angelic as beamed up ones are (sarcasm)); other cultures do not so interpret. But, as Hanover said, the so envisioned cosmic apocalypse is supposed to lead to a complete perfection of being, not to demise and destruction, as an end of affairs.

Always wanted to partake in giving rise to a new slang: rather than “that’s radical” as I grew up with, “that’s apocalyptic!” as in mind-blowing in what is revealed. But, alas, I’ve never been that cool to start new slang.

At any rate, there’s nothing apocalyptic I can think of about the new mass-extinction we’re currently living through and the related de-evolutions of civilized culture. Other than reinforcing that we humans are not as intelligent as we often like to think we are.

As to readings, Stoicism has tended to help me out. I’m thinking Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” might be a good start.

Strange as it may sound, there are those who secretly relish apocalyptic fantasies, who want to hear nothing but tragic news (one could call it ‘doom porn’) . — Joshs

:100:

Man, Hanover’s stuff hasn’t received any credit. — javra

I know, right?

The evolution of humanity is toward greater life expectancy, less hunger, less strife, less war. I extrapolate from what I see a trajectory toward perfection, not destruction.

I know, right? — Hanover

Does this have anything to do with the "Who's the fairest of them all?" cat pic? :grin:

The evolution of humanity is toward greater life expectancy, less hunger, less strife, less war. I extrapolate from what I see a trajectory toward perfection, not destruction. — Hanover

I'd replace the "is" with "should be". The less hunger, strife, and war part might be questionable, as might be life expectancy in upcoming years.

To clarify: ... unless the global warming thing actually is someone's hoax. I doubt that, though.

But, alas, I’ve never been that cool to start new slang. — javra

Cool people don't start slang, they are the first ones to get noticed for using it. I've never been cool.

Maybe 'apoplectic" or some such. Apoplectic apocalypse. Apocalyptic apoplexy. I was going to suggest "calyptic" but it's already in the urban dictionary.

unless the global warming thing actually is someone's hoax — javra

Not a hoax. We're totally screwed.

:smile:

I've never been cool. — Bitter Crank

Only cool people have the nerve to say this of themselves.

unless the global warming thing actually is someone's hoax — javra

Not a hoax. We're totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

Just caught that edit of yours. "Totally" might be too much. Cheap enough carbon recapture technology might be on the horizon. The catch is that we'd need to be investing into research for it in order for it to come about. To my knowledge, currently, not so much is being invested.

Just caught that edit of yours. "Totally" might be too much. Cheap enough carbon recapture — javra

True, 'totally screwed' might be overly pessimistic. How about 'largely screwed'?

One form of carbon recapture that is on the shelf, proven, and ready to go: trees. if we all planted as many trees as we could (within the restraints of land needed for agriculture), we could soak up a lot of carbon. another approach: Agricultural methods are available which increase the carbon content of soils. A third important approach is conservation. IF (very big IF) we reduced private transportation (1 car, 1 passenger) and reduced production of many goods (fewer clothes, fewer sofas, far fewer disposable products) we could reduce CO2 output.

A side effect of obsessive tree planting is that in 60 years (about) could begin harvesting huge new reserves of carbon sequestered building material. A wooden house or wooden office building holds on to its stored carbon until it is burned up. With maintenance, a wood building can last hundreds of years. Keep it dry and don't let it catch fire.

Pumping CO2 into the ground requires a lot of energy.

Well obviously the ending has its own merit, but when all things are said and done the end of the road only really serves to look back on the journey.

Joshua,

I would like to bring attention to Yeats' Leda and the Swan, specifically to those unable to grapple with your premise:

A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
And how can body, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.
Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

This is a troubling poem, and we live in troubling times. If we are, as some suggest, as helpless as Leda, we have really nothing better to be doing, arguably even a duty, to muse on the impact of this 'inevitability'.
I understand a major gripe is that you aren't convinced Joshua's premise is true, and to that I say dispute it in your own post! We'd be happy to discuss. But for the record even biting into the low hanging fruit paint a pretty clear picture: climate change (!), the rise of the right wing, the commodification of art and virtue etc.; even though our economic position is steadfast, it is apparent that we are quickly falling or have recently impacted at the bottom of a Stygian well whose nature is hard to pinpoint. One of the reasons why I with genuine good faith in mind am actively encouraging you to dispute us elsewhere is that Joshua's goal has been lost to the this conflating mist of people who disagree, while offering little counter-evidence. I'm glad you're living in summer, but for those of us who aren't this kind of discussion is nothing but invalidating and to be frank, pointless.

Plus, even if it turns out Joshua and myself and countless others live in total delusion, what is lost besides engaging in thoughtful discussion of ideas? Is it not better to at least humor Joshua's thoughts even if it doesn't flow through you intuitively? I'd also like to hazard against believing the world we live in is somehow different from how it has been so far lest we enact the same mistakes our ancestors did in the past ~100 years alone; denoting thoughts not as invalid simply because you are not privy to them does little besides keep you in the pleasant shade of irony.

Anyway Joshua, back to your idea. To me, the most potent aspect of our collapse is the aforementioned commodification of art (broadly, of course). Art used to have this air about it, that whether hung on the master's easel or erupting from the rhapsodes throat, sang the grievances of the populace in relation to the time, while penetrating beyond acceptable social and political and moral barriers. This has since been lost in the mainstream as art has turned into a way to flaunts ones intellect, uniqueness, and ironically, social class, therefore being forced to stay within these bounds, with any counter-cultural movements themselves becoming a furthering of these bounds, rather than a rejection or expansion beyond of them. The forces art would push against have reworked the culture to turn art into a furthering of these very forces. The natural rebuke is that art in the past was quite literally a symbol of class status, but I feel that it was rather that these large commissions and mantle-pieces (largely confined to fine-art, mind you), used class as medium to exist rather than a depiction of that medium, and even then, they were rarely purely laudatory. I am open to thoughts on this, as frankly I hope I'm totally wrong, but I think we'll find cold prophesy in the death of art and spirit of it's time.

Therefore, I think much can be learned from the modernists. Both in pictorial, literary, musical form the way they handled the shattering of the 'Classical' human. Having seen both ends lends insight into a position I'd wager isn't that different from ours, beyond the expansion arguably the same forces therefrom, their plight and journey and reconciliation may bear hearty logs to stoke the flames. To this, I recommend imagist poets, i.e. Cookson, Doolittle, Pound, Williams, maybe Hemingway. When I am lacking inspiration for whatever reason, I generally return to a recognized source, and I think a return to 'purer' form may lend itself to a purer, or perhaps more immortal philosophy, one adequate for our newfound night.

Following this, it's implied then that we've lost something. I would agree with this idea. Something we knew about, revealed by the sun, has since rendered back into the Plutonian shore from whence it came and so my hope is that our growing campfire may not necessarily reveal to us an absolute answer immediately, but perhaps reveal richer forests. For this I recommend the Romanticists.

I'm not crazy about simple movement-hopping, but I think this return to essence in the above schools of thought may be a good staging point for our lumberjacks to harvest.

Again, I'm open to any ideas or disagreements, I just hope they advance the point of Joshua's original post rather than question, nay reject it's current validity in response to a winter you are sheltered from.

I wish you all the best.