Shitass little kid can’t even think of what to turn a tree into. LMAO
On one hand, I want to mail you a brick. On the other hand, I am upvoting you for your shitposter take.
Mail a brick with the force of a comet
Express mail
This is something we really need to take on: not all value needs to be utility or monetary based. Things can have existential value, too.
Unfortunately we take the former approach with just about everything. We willingly tie our worth as a human to our work performance or some other ridiculous metric. You don’t have to be the paragon of project management, or a world famous influencer to be deemed worthy. You are worthy just because you exist.
Trees, frogs, and mosses all have inalienable rights to exist, too. Since they comprise the natural world, and actually perform functions to sustain said world, they have value. Moreso, I would argue, than an exemplar of project management, or bumping up a number on the NYSE. More value than the table we could make from the trees, or the extra bit of space we could use from destroying wetland (frog) habitat.
Reminds me of this story. The commentary isn’t really necessary, imo. The story stands without it.
…poor little Timmy later got lost and went on to die from exposure in that forest, unable to build shelter.
He just couldn’t work out what to do with the sticks. Insisting the sticks not be moved from where they fell was ultimately the problem, if you ask me.
Is this by Sergio Aragones? It looks like his style. I did a reverse image search and couldn’t figure it out.
Absolutely his style. He a real one.
Looks like it but I don’t know. The site I stole it from had already removed any signature, if there was one.
Definitely Sergio. No doubt about it.
I was thinking it looks like one from MAD magazine, so it must be Sergio.
Dude in the third panel needs to go to the hospital. His leg is bending the wrong way.
That’s why he’s thinking about furniture, man needs to rest.
I like how the comic becomes progressively sun bleached
This implies that only children enjoy trees for their natural beauty, that is just dumb.
beuty
That is just dumb
Uh…
That’s also not what this is implying. Go make a board game about jumping to conclusions. I hear red staplers are on sale at Walmart.
Then tell me what it implies when all adults in the comic wants to cut the tree down, and only the kid appreciate the beauty of the tree as it is?
Kids are often used as an allegory for the innocent/naive/uncorrupted/enlightened
The kid sees the tree for what it is, not what it could be manipulated into as the other character do.
That is basically what I wrote with other words.
Go find your inner child. He/she/they are crying out for love, protection.
Many of our words are the same, but you asked a question and I provided an interpreted answer.
Edit: To say it specifically
The fourth character was drawn as a character representing an enlightened perspective. Rather than having multiple panels or having text to describe this, the character was drawn as a child as a shorthand since children come with that association in most cultures.
This is opposed to the other characters drawn in different walks of life’s who have their own unenlightened motives which we assume by default within the context of the forth panel.
Which doesn’t really answer why the other guy disagreed with me.
The issue is that you called it dumb because you interpret it as “only children” are enlightened enough to see the tree as a tree.
But I don’t believe that is the intent of the comic, instead, they simply drew a child as a shorthand representation for the concept of enlightenment.
I believe any person can be so enlightened to see something as it is, and not what it could be made into if they wanted to.
Therefore, I don’t think the comic is dumb as you stated. I think the comic is attempting to motivate people to see things as they are and be enlightened.
Also there was a little humor in the misspelling of a common word when calling something dumb, in the way of “kettle calling the pot black”
The child is someone who doesn’t have a financial stake in what the tree is used for. It’s narrative shorthand for innocence, but it doesn’t mean “only children think this way”.
Otherwise it wouldn’t be encouraging the readers, presumably adults, to think that way, because it would be impossible.
All of these views are valid. A tree has to be seen for what it can provide. If it’s more valuable to society and nature as a tree, leave it be. If other trees can gain from it being removed earlier than its natural decay demands, I’d argue to remove it.
This tree is by a path, so it’s better to leave it be.
Other trees can be sustainably harvested and made into whatever our society needs.
Depends. Is it stable? Does it pose a threat to passer bys ?
A live tree has no value in on our financial system.
Shade from street trees provides fairly straightforward financial benefit in reducing cooling costs.
Can also make an area more attractive, increase happiness and also improve road safety if strategically placed.
Trees prevent soil erosion, keep water clean, provide the basis for many beneficial insects and so forth and so on. They have a giant value in our financial system.
A live tree has no immediate quarterly value in our financial system.
Ok, now put a monetary value to that
I‘d have to get my tables from work. It highly depends on the species, soil, size, location, age, natural area of the species and so forth. A decently sized oak at around 100-150 years old usually gets weighed in at around 2000€. Variation however is a given.
And who pays the 2000€? Is it an annual payment?
It’s an investment? Just like an office building or a company car?
I wanna build a tree house and live symbiotically.
deleted by creator
one will protect you the other will try to kill you
<3
If they only get like a day of prep time, Carpenter. If it’s a longterm battle, the youth.
I would imagine to set it on fire…
