The Red Road calls the plant world ''Sacred Givers of Energy'' and the animal world ''Sacred Receivers of Energy''.
Of course, animals play a critical part in supporting plant world growth and reproduction, and givers and recipients are dependent on one another for survival.
The striking point in this perspective is that in nature givers are passive, and recipients are takers - which contrasts with the human idea that giving is active and receiving is passive.
As Humans, we give by selecting what of our own we are willing to part with, or share; time, energy, money, creativity, wisdom or a combination thereof. Voluntary giving, generosity, procure humans deep joy and sense of belonging.
However, letting others take what they need from us is essentially ''doormat behaviour'' and is broadly considered unhealthy - ie. submissive, spineless or sacrificing.
Meanwhile in the plant kingdom, trees give shelter, oxygen and food just by virtue of existing. They have no defence against animals helping themselves, and to a large extent benefit from the pruning.
As Humans, we receive by welcoming what is given us, being available and grateful for what comes our way, whether it be in the form of gestures, presents, affirmation, and whomever it may come from.
Inaptitude to receive is both antisocial and depleting for the soul. The intention to take is invasive to others, and fuels dissatisfaction; things taken are not quite as satisfying as those given to us freely, those ''earnt''.
Meanwhile in the animal kingdom, predators prey, herbivores mow, and all take a piss, a stroll, a break or a rub as they see fit, guilt-free and oblivious to the fate of others.
This could be confused for the a choice to either offer ourselves to the world selflessly and indiscriminately or to take what we need wilfully and light-heartedly.
This would mean that humans are doomed to either take carelessly or be preyed on compliantly. It would make our gift of conscience and freewill pointless when actually, being ''Determiners'' demands of us to make conscious choices.
When we don't do that, and rather withhold, reject, take, demand, expect, submit or sacrifice, we actually hurt ourselves.
We are determiners of energy because, contrarily to plants, we give actively; we choose where our energy goes.
And this dynamic of determined giving requires that, contrarily to animals, we receive passively - or rather, openly.
When toddlers find an object of curiousity - playful, broken, disgusting, new, anything they have acted on, made... Their first instinct is to give it to someone, preferably someone they love.
Now if the same loved person tries to take that same object from the same toddler, chances they will be met with resistance, a full on tantrum and possible destruction of said object.
Toddlers give freely, and say no to being taken things. This is human nature.
Healthy relationships are mutual. We never have to return in kind, or in a given timeframe, what we are given. But we do need to balance out the relationship and give in turn.
When we give, we fill the other's capacity to receive. If we insist on giving ahead of their returning, or worse, close ourselves to their reciprocating, we overflow to the point of discomfort. We endebt them and unknowingly turn our giving into unmeetable demands.
When I think of my relationships, I can look at how balanced and reciprocal they are, and how rewarding they are. Can I see that the most rewarding relationships are also the most reciprocal?
In those areas in my life where I don't receive what I want, or anything at all, I can ask myself:
How true is it that nothing is coming my way? Am I not being unnecessarily, unknowingly, or fearfully selective? Can it be my turn to give?