Dariusz Gzyra (social activist, publicist) and Daniel Petryczkiewicz (photographer, activist) participated in the meeting. The debate was moderated by Marcin Hinz - cultural anthropologist, qualitative researcher. Unfortunately, due to health reasons, Paula Dudek (illustrator, painter), another invited speaker could not join the meeting.

At the outset, Marcin Hinz, the meeting moderator, noted that the lack of a female voice in the debate, much to the regret of all the speakers, was due to the illness of Paula Dudek, who was sent warm greetings for a speedy recovery. Marcin Hinz began the debate began by introducing the speakers.

Dariusz Gzyra’s activities border the scientific research and practical activity. He is a social activist deeply involved in ecology and animal protection. He is the president of the "Empathy" Association. He calls himself a pragmatic abolitionist. He is the author of the book "Thank You for Pig Eyes" and of several scientific publications.

Daniel Petryczkiewicz - photographer, blogger, activist. He practices an engaged art, student of the school of Eco-poetics. Lately he has been exploring local places and communities such as the one called Small River.

The discussion was opened by Dariusz Gzyra who emphasized that the very meeting of the formula "not live" was in a way - unnatural.  Namely, what did words “nature” and “naturally” mean, and how did those concepts construct identities of a human being as a member of some community, and thus, did the emergence of artificial concepts of what was human and inhuman not constitute an attempt to tame the nature and establish a hierarchy?

The theses around which the discussion developed were - "Culture as a manifestation of nature" and "Culture is the nature not only of human beings, but of many other beings." The speakers agreed that one of the most important elements of culture is the language, the command of which is not eventually limited to human beings.

Daniel Petryczkiewicz, agreeing with the previous speaker, added that he was convinced that animals perfectly understood what people said (here from outside the frame his dog wanted to join the conversation). Daniel Petryczkiewicz noted that the dualism of culture and nature is also associated with the concept of gender, and it was convenient for those in power, politicians and the world of capitalism, who used it to create a kind of consent to hierarchization. The wildness of nature, on the other hand, is immediately associated with freedom. However, the word nature was definitely more extensive and required a deeper analysis than culture, which was simpler to define. To sum up, Petryczkiewicz regarded the nature-culture division as artificial, which had no right to exist.

Marcin Hinz, the moderator, remarked that the language we used to describe nature is hugely important, as it often had a political context. He referred to Dariusz Gzyra's book, where the relationship between language and nature was very strong. Life was slipping out of patterns, and in order to organize it we gave nature specific characteristics, making an attempt to systematize the vastness of concepts.  Using language pins was a big responsibility for the word.

Daniel Petryczkiewicz joined the discussion, saying that language creates reality, and thus the use of words that described things as natural or unnatural was often "stolen" by some entities for their own particular (often evil) interests. We had to fight for words so that they were put to good use. Petryczkiewicz himself stated that he felt more natural than cultural. Natural - meant good and correct, although it was not always perceived that way.

Daniel Petryczkiewicz stressed that nature, understood as nature and its degradation, forced culture to act. This was a creatively very positive and inspiring aspect. Speaking of this, he wanted to get the audience to reflect on the word nature. A serious approach to the topics of ecology or environmental disaster to mainstream culture became a reality. Last year was a watershed year, and the pandemic situation resulted in the need to make many sacrifices, the effects of which might prove to be salutary for nature.

Dariusz Gzyra also noted a change in caring for the welfare of nature, especially the protection of animals. The topic of the enormous role of artists as intermediaries between individuals and the surrounding world came up several times in the discussion. An excellent example of this function was documenting nature responsibly. A picture taken by a photographer could, in a way, stop multitudes of people from "trampling" the photographed place. What culture could do for nature was to maintain distance and respect. Daniel Petryczkiewicz stressed that we should become people who did not force nature to conform to our expectations and be useful, but those who appreciated the immense goodness carried by the world around us.

The moderator proposed to devote the meeting to the subject of "Culture is the nature of the man." The speakers said that it would be very difficult to write a decalogue of the man's cultural behavior towards nature, but they unequivocally pointed out that everyone should learn to notice nature on a micro scale. And enjoy the beauty on a macro scale through intermediaries from the world of culture through, for example, poetry, photography, literature and many other transmitters. Such a form will be a kind of an ethical act towards nature.

Marcin Hinz noted that the pandemic has prompted people to think and act environmentally. He cited a report by Krytyka Polityczna under the title "Not our fault, not our problem." He pointed out, among other things, the hypocrisy of certain social groups, the constant attempts to point blame beyond themselves and the awareness of the problem, but with no willingness to make sacrifices to fix it.

Dariusz Gzyra pointed out another important aspect, namely consumer choices affecting nature, and thus the need for systemic change, but based on understanding the actions of individuals. Allowing individuals to be efficacious may have a significant impact on corporations and governments. The involvement of art and artists in promoting this message and the responsibility of artists are of crucial importance. Daniel emphasized the role of the new U.S. presidency and the Green Deal program in the European Union as elements to force, for example, the introduction of the recycling or the transition to renewable energy sources in countries of low public awareness. In those countries, changes should start to be introduced as soon as possible.

Concluding the debate, both speakers, despite their earlier rather pessimistic visions, said they saw an opportunity to increase the influence of culture in saving the nature. Daniel Petryczkiewicz, an optimist from the very beginning, believed in change, while Dariusz Gzyra, who was deep down a pessimist, also believed that thanks to the fact that the subject of environmental disaster and the threats to nature had broken through to the media, the level of public awareness would be raised. Petryczkiewicz and Gzyra were unanimous in stating that people of culture had self-efficacy and should use it despite all odds. Daniel Petryczkiewicz appealed - "Listen and read poetry too, because poetry is wild, and don't avoid descriptions of nature while reading prose."