Lisa... Have you ever thought about not filling in all of the blanks when you write a post? Ya know... see what folks have to say in reaction to the items instead of setting it up as a "Let's react to Lisa's commentary!"

Just a suggestion.

I for one really appreciate the commentary offered by the authors of this website, since I have little or no training in sociology. I've found it very informative, even in cases when I disagree with them (because, as you'll notice, they don't remove comments based solely on whether or not they disagree with them). Also, I don't see how any of this is preventing you from commenting on the items in the post.

Also, is the sarcastic tone really necessary? If you really do have "just a suggestion," why not respectfully suggest less poster commentary?

This is a really informative and generally safe space for me online. As a frequent reader, I request that you try to frame your suggestions a little more respectfully and a little less sarcastically. Thanks.

While these two ads do show us examples of how nature is socially constructed, I don't think they are an appropriate coupling. One employs anthropomorphism and the other is naturalistic. Either method of portrayal could be used, just as effectively, for the opposite effect. Mother Nature as beauty, grace and life-giver vs. Naturalistic show of destruction and hardship.

There seems to be a false dichotomy being presented here. I take them both as interesting but not necessarily related.

It's interesting that it's OK to slap mother nature as it is being portrayed as a woman.

Whatever else it is, the second ad is certainly phallic enough.

I always thought cellphones came from plastic and electronics fused together. Apparently they come from flowers! Guess I need an updated "birds and bees" lesson.

I think the distinction is a false dichotomy. It is true that nature is harsh and uncaring, but we owe everything we are to that fact. In a harmonious environment of infinite resources, nothing more complicated than the simplest self-replicating molecule could evolve; abundance precludes the existence of life capable of appreciating it. Only because of the death and suffering inherent in life does life ever grow into something interesting.

The same, certainly, could be said of our civilization. As Peter Watts put it in Blindsight, "...tools existed for only one reason: to force the universe into unnatural shapes. They treated nature as an enemy, they were by definition a rebellion against the way things were. Technology is a stunted thing in benign environments, it never thrived in any culture gripped by belief in natural harmony. Why invent fusion reactors if your climate is comfortable, if your food is abundant? Why build fortresses if you have no enemies? Why force change upon a world which poses no threat?"

If nature were indeed a caring Mother figure, she would presumably want her children to be able to take care of themselves. Given that the only way to do this on evolutionary scales is with brutality, I am brought to the conclusion that the world would look just the same as it does either way.

"The two examples together show us that the nature of nature is socially constructed; humans portray it in multiple ways, using it as a resource to tell stories about ourselves… and cell phones."

Well no shit. "Mother Nature" is only the *idea* of the personified planet. It's no different than "Father Time". Our planet and time aren't real people with real personalities, so what's the big deal?