Hacksaw had been using a signature quote from Mors Kochanski to the effect that the bush is inert.

BruceZed posted: “Not to digress to much but in my opinion the bush is not really inert, it is neutral when it come to whether we are going to live or die during a survival situation.”

I invited both of them to make this idea a new topic.

Seeing no new topic posted, I started this thread.

I do not believe any natural environment is either inert or neutral. A Coast Guard search and rescue diver put it well: “The ocean is trying to kill you.”

I think the same is true everywhere in the outdoors whether on land or sea: nature wants to digest you. Unless you act to prevent it, the nutrients in your body will be lost to nature.

It starts with either heat loss or dehydration, and goes on to direct attack by creatures large and small. Even the part of nature represented by your own body demands water, food, shelter, etc.

Inert? Neutral? I don’t think so.

What do you think?

Thanks.

i too have questioned - in my mind - that signature.

i assume - always a bad move - that 'bush' means nature or the whole outdoors.

merriam's dictionary defines inert:

1: lacking the power to move

well, nature grows and while growing, moves. now of course nature doesn't move to cincinnati. but nature does overgrow anything in its path - see mayan or cambodian temples.

2: very slow to move or act : sluggish

now this fits nature.

3: deficient in active properties; especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action.

nature very much has a 'usual or anticipated chemical or biological action.' in many cases, extremely predictable.

so, in my mind, by definition, inert is a mixed bag. but i think it is incorrect.

now if he's trying to say that nature has no emotion and has no interest in any anticipated outcome, i would agree with that.

in my mind, nature - the bush - is what it is. it is not positive, it is not negative, it just is.

pretty heavy stuff for so early in the morning.

I too have looked at that signature and dismissed it as simply wrong.

The saying that the NPS puts up on trail info signs I think expresses it better. "The mountains don't care." And that's nature at it's most benign.

In reality, there are elements (insects, reptiles, arachnids, and mammals) out there that are trying to eat your lunch, or eat YOU for lunch. They are actively seeking your demise or just wanting to abuse you for their survival benefit. It's without malice but it's active.

So you could expand the topic considerably.
The mountains don't care if you aren't having a good time.
The mountains don't care if you think they are beautiful.
The mountains don't care if you die here.
The mountains don't care if you are injured here and die somewhere else.
The mountains don't care if your wife never sees you alive again.
The mountains don't care if you have to cut off your arm to save your life.
The mountains don't care if you fall thru the ice and die of hypothermia.
The mountains don't care if that rattlesnake never gets to consume you as prey. (Some other creatures will though.)


etc.


I suppose you could also find an analogue in daily life.
The other driver doesn't care.
The cop doesn't care.
The guy who designed this highway doesn't care :-)

Inert is not a good term to describe nature because it implies that nature is powerless. However, a good argument could be made for neutral.

Nature in general doesn't care whether you live or die. It can and has provided for our well being if/when we have known enough to take what we need. OTOH, nature won't give us this bounty on a silver platter, we have to take it and keep it and we may need to compete with other inhabitants of nature who are better suited.

Just as we can consider a salmon we catch in a stream to be part of what nature provides, the grizzly who's food we just took is also part of nature. Nature "in general" doesn't care whether the bear gets the salmon, we get the salmon or the bear gets us. Neutral is a good term.

I'm not going to debate this one because Mors Kochanski is somebody who I really respect and admire...and he's a fellow Albertan!

The quote comes from his 'credo' which I'll quote here. I've done so without permission and have no affiliation with Mors or his school.

The bush is neutral. Is is neither for nor against me. My comfort depends on what I can do for myself and how much I know about using the bush materials around me. Becoming angry, depressed or unhappy does little to help me in my situation. I will try to think positive thoughts and find ways to be thankful for what I have. When I am not sure of what to do I will stop, relax, and think out the situation before I act.
I realize moving about when I do not know where I am or where I am going will make it difficult for others to find me.
My concern at this moment is to make myself comfortable for tonight. I shall shelter myself from wind, rain or snow and build a fire to warm up.
I will not let fear or panic rule my mind as this only works against me. The bush is inert. It is incapable off doing me harm.

Nature is a cruel mistess,just like I like 'em ;-) It kinda reminds me of an old song by Twisted Sister..... What you don't know can hurt you. Nature is all about change and balance. She will try to absorb you even as she provides for you.

-Bill Liptak

How is he defining "bush"? That last line seems more like someone convincing himself it's safe to go to sleep. Too bad Mors isn't here to explain the context of that statement.

If he'd left off those last 2 sentences it would be a great statement.

I always thought that signature was a comment on U.S. politics....

Seriously, this is a very thought-provoking and practical topic. My interest and activities to be better equipped were started by the realization ("awakening" might be an even better word) that the world, people, life, God don't owe me ease and comfort and, as others have noted here, the natural world is indifference in general and many times hostile in particular to not only my ease but my life.

Don't ask me how much of my life was spent under the delusion that the world, nature, society, government owed me ease and plenty. I'm glad for this forum.

Living things may or may not be trying to kill you. The universe doesn't care.

-john

I agree with your take. We could edit the statement thusly:

"The bush is [rendered] inert. It is [now] incapable of doing me harm."

i wouldn't go that far. it still retains the ability to harm you. as you've said, you, however, are better prepared to prevail and not allow it to harm you.

ok, so i'm picky.

The Kochansky words aren't a depiction of reality, they are a pep talk. Pep talks generally have little to do with reality. This discussion is at core a theological argument, contrasting different views of the universe: Benign universe vs Vengeful universe, universal forgiveness vs original sin. As such, we may be in proscribed territory.

Credo is defined as a Creed...which in it's non religious form is defined as:

Any system of principles of beliefs

and in it's religious form (just for nursemike since he's going down that road):

the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

I think the former is likely more appropriate as survival isn't a religion (though for some of us it might be close).

I like Merriam-Websters definition better:

1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

I do not think nature is either vengeful or benign, as it is not one entity or capable of intention. However I think nature in general ruthlessly requires all of its occupants to struggle to maintain or enhance their positions. Fail to struggle, struggle for the wrong thing, or get unlucky, and nature takes its toll.

We know that toll as starvation, injury, dehydration, hypothermia, getting sick, getting eaten, etc.

From the context I interpret inert as not actively acting toward harming me per se as the different creatures are acting in their own self interests (as am I). May not be consistent with the dictionary definition but that's the neat thing about literature, one can use words in a different context to invoke a different perspective.

The rocks (part of the bush as a whole) can cause me great injury, and they are not actively attempting to harm me.

The bear (part of the bush as a whole) can cause me great harm, and is not attempting to harm me personally as it is taking the easiest opportunity for food or safety. If something else is easier prey, it will go for that instead leaving me alone.

It's my job to make it as inconvenient for something to see me as prey, so it'll go chew on someone else...

I think the most appropriate answer to this thread is for everybody to review the Ferengi "Rules of Acquisition"

http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm

To quote the great Canadian naturalist/writer Grey Owl:

"In the fastness of this rapidly fading frontier, the last on this continent, reigns the Spirit of the North Land. Enthroned behind the distant mountains with the cohorts and legions of his last grand army massed about him, he sallies forth, brooding over the length and breadth of the land, seeking whom he may destroy, ever devising new means for the elimination of the invaders of his chosen realm. His is not the shock of honest battle in the open, but by devious ways and subtle methods he obtains is ends. Securely entrenched behind the bristling ramparts of the forest, with all the unleashed forces of the primeval at his command, he primes his deadly weapons, and spreads his entanglements, his obstacles, and his snares; nor are they always vainly set.

Through them the invader must pick his way with the delicacy and assurance of one who walks barefoot amoungst naked knives. Some of his weapons are merely annoyances, irritating but bearable; other are harassing to the point of obsession, wearing out the body and mind, and lessening the resisting power of a man; others, yet, bring swift death, or the long slow agonies of those who would die but cannot."
Grey Owl in The Men of the Last Frontier

It seems to me that if nature were inert there would be much less of a need for this website.

-Blast

I will never forget opening day 1976 summer season at Garibaldi Lifeboat Station, Tillamook Bay Oregon.I was almost T-boned by a camper on the PCH pulling out of base for the boat shed.We had to call a tow truck to remove 4 cars illegaly parked in our reserved spaces. Then I found some tourists had slipped in from a Boston Whaler and were onboard the boats themselvesstealing Icarus flares. We arrested them for trespass and burglary and called the sheriff. I was about to cast off when a speedboat roared past us, hit the beach and became briefly airborne. He crashed into a logs from the great Tillamook Burn and was killed instantly. After we called the sheriff and coroner I started walking back to the shed. This guy was backing down the loading ramp with a trailered boat behind a airstream behind a camper truck. He hit the gas instead of the brake and all three units went into the water. He's screaming he's drowning. I walk over, open the door, unhook his safety belt and walk him to shore.We let him call a Tow Truck. I was finally getting underway, raising the radar mast and pulling in fenders when the tower reported a capsizing near the bar. I hit the strobe light and siren. Some guy in a handmade italian rowing shell crossed my bow, yelling " human powered vessels have right of w...." I neatly cut 3' off his bow and put him in the water swearing at me. We dodged at least 8 other vessels that didn't have a clue.We got an update from the tower stating everybody had been picked up by a commercial fishing boat, but their boat was now a hazard to navigation and we had to tow it in. Tower estimated the Bar @ 14' and looking 'just plain mean.' Everybody climbed into wet suits, helmets, MK 1 life preservers. I ordered my crew into our safety harness. My deckie was brand new and looked a little apprehensive as we began our run to pop over. I told him to relax, this was the easy part of opening day.I don't know if the bush is inert, or if the ocean wants to kill coastie rescue swimmers. I do know, you have to get to it first, and that can truly be a effort to survive.

Yeah that little ditty is on the inside cover of his little guide books. I agree with most of the statement IF:
The idea that he is conveying is that nature is not overtly hostile or friendly, those being human traits. Nature can be managed if we can hold our emotions in check - not panic, and if we have the knowledge and abilities to live and understand our natural surroundings.

The last part about nature being incapable of doing harm, I have to seriously disagree with. Even if we are quite capable of living in the northern bush country there are always events out of our control, for example a tornado, that can end your life pretty darn quickly or at least put you in a precarious situation.

I read that his ditty is mostly about the psychology of living in bush country or in any natural setting for that matter. He tried to explain it in a similar fashion when I was on his course last year. I just didn't buy into the very last statement of his credo. As a statement it can be useful in allaying the fears and trepidations of his students to understanding northern bush country.

Now that is comedy! I never pictured you as a Star Trek type person!

The Star Trek series presents the best Leadership Lessons that I have yet seen on film. You will find both good and bad examples of Leadership in the different series' episodes.

Put yourself in God's Path.

Take lessons in all subjects where you find them.

Interesting point. I would have to say that I've seen every episode of every series...

That's why I am a sailor,,,,,it's the closest that I'll ever get to driving a spaceship.

As a former U.S. Marine, I always noticed how the Star Trek crews (on every series) were grossly undisciplined. They were always whining and coping an attitude with their commanding officers. And their commanding officers let them get away with it.

Kirk drove around in his big white SUV talking on his cellphone. And you wonder why Klingons hated him?