-Pre-modern attitude would be the forester.
-Modern attitude would be the gardener.
- And post-modern cognitive and turbo globalized attitude would be the hunter.
Here we briefly analyse the two first ones and develop the last one in accordance with the most recent experiences.
It is necessary not to idealise the pre-modern relation with the nature, as many times the mankind has acted as an effective predator that has forced significant ecological changes. But still recognising it, pre-modern societies and specially pre-agricultural ones they considered themselves part of the nature, understood as an organism that involves them and with divine signs or characteristics. Therefore, in many aspects, pre-modern civilisations would consider themselves as some kind of «forester» that lives in and of the nature, but, «obeying it», since the nature is some kind of upper power, due to its intrinsic value or by divine work.
Pre-modern societies can not imagine another way to live, and although they can predate notably the surroundings, they consider themselves as natural course and order defenders, and they don't feel included between his aggressors. Bauman (2007) is certainly true when saying “the forester usually acts with the conception that «the nature order, the way we live and everything functions, is better without modifying it»”. However, in reality, the forester certainly modifies it changing it continuously and sometimes provoking important effects. Definitely: it is not the same a wild jungle as a rainforest with a «forester», as the «forester» is not a neutral agent neither his particular interests have to coincide completely with the ones of «his» forest.
Traducción de Jaume Mayos del capítulo de Homo obsoletus. Precariedad y desempoderamiento de Gonçal Mayos en ed. Linkgua.
Ver los posts: EL GUARDABOSQUES PREMODERNO
EL MODERNO «JARDINERO» Y SUS HOMÓLOGOS
VERDAD, HIELO FRÁGIL Y PENDIENTE RESBALADIZA