sdbest

Let me jump in here as a filmmaker. If a film doesn't have a Foley track it sounds dead and naked, empty. With a Foley track it comes alive. Even the micro-est of micro-budget features and shorts should budget for a Foley track. I even add Foley tracks to documentaries, if reasonable.

One of the real problems environmentalists face are false notions among the public, the press, and politicians about the nature of living organisms and their interactions, between themselves and with human life. The notions that plants or animals are 'bad', or some are 'good', or that natural phenomena is morally malevolent or benevolent is not helpful. Such value-laden arguments are used to politically rationalize, for example, the culling of marine mammals to protect commercial fisheries.

Scientists, no matter how well-intentioned, ascribing attributes to the natural world like monstrous or kinkiness is, I suggest, counter-productive, regardless of how uniformed some lay people may be. People and non-human life does not benefit from "just so" stories about the natural world.

Human attributes wrongly attributed to non-human life or natural phenomena make sound environmental and animal protection public policies ever more difficult to achieve.

I did not intend to suggest that you claimed "Mother Nature" was an actual person. But, the notion of "Mother Nature" is one best archived as an historical oddity.

"Morbid kinkiness of Mother Nature?" That's quite a faux biological scientific concept you're promoting there. Shouldn't we abuse people of the notion that we can ascribe human characteristic and motives to "Mother Nature?" Mother Nature is not trying to do anything, as you well know. Indeed, like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Bogeyman, and God, there is no Mother Nature.