| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Should we view humans more as part of nature? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 12 2014, 07:55 AM (1,768 Views) | |
| Mesopredator | Dec 12 2014, 07:55 AM Post #1 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'll explain. Lately I watched human planet. I might take a too much romantic view, so my apologies for that. Here we see several peoples that to me live side by side with nature. To me they are part of the ecosystems they life in, and maybe we should view it that way. I read on survival international that several tribes are excluded from ecosystems (national parks). Meanwhile tourists and game hunters, which I think are less part of the ecosystems are allowed. I understand that even tribal people can be harmful to the environment, but shouldn't we view them as part of it and seek to help them to sustain the ecosystem? I would say that they have the most interest in keeping it sustainable. I even think that "developed" humans are part of ecosystems. But less. Why? I think our relationship with nature is less tao, and more autoritarian if you will. We tend to manage it, instead of "flowing along its waves". Whereas the several peoples on human planet live side by side, we live border to border. There's nature, and there's human so to speak. We remove and control. There's less room for nature to develop, and more room for humans to develop. There is antropogenic nature. Such as nature in cities, novel ecosystems and feral animals. There's little interest, or less interest, in nature in cities, dog-wolf hybrids and the-like. I think they deserve equal interest. Take the New Forest in England, it is a beautiful ecosystem but manmade. My thesis is as follows: instead of viewing humans as something excluded from nature, maybe we should view us as (more) part of nature. That is not all. I think we should see how we can better live amongst it, instead of seeing it as something that needs to be protected from humans, or something that only serves us or seeing it as merely profit. Examples: -Instead of trying to exclude, seek ways to incorperate. This could be as something simple as small connected pieces of nature around settlements. Or such things as permaculture or forest gardening that mimic ecosystems. Polyculture instead of monoculture. -More toleration for predators. Again instead of excluding them, it would be better to find ways that minimise conflict. (I understand that may be more difficult in practice as in thought, there are such things as livestock guarding) -More tolerance towards antropogenic environments and animals. I feel there's a split between human and nature. I put my fingers towards both Abrahamic religion and humanism. Capitalism may not be helping either, as it motivates towards profit and tasty instead of sustainable and healthy. I feel as if we need a cultural evolution of sorts. |
![]() |
|
| The All-seeing Night | Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM Post #2 |
![]()
You are without honor
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Depends on what you consider "nature". |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Dec 12 2014, 10:43 AM Post #3 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I, personally, consider nature something very natural. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Dec 12 2014, 01:43 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Humans are, fundamentally, living organisms (and further, are animals). So on a scientific level, we sure are "natural". However, I can definitely see where questions can arise concerning humanity's involvement in "nature" as in "the wild". It can honestly go either way |
![]() |
|
| maker | Dec 12 2014, 03:07 PM Post #5 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If nature is non-living things, no, if nature is living and non-living things, yes. |
![]() |
|
| Mesopredator | Dec 14 2014, 01:58 AM Post #6 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Note: I feel as if I'm a bit naive on certain things. So if humans are part of nature, shouldn't the changes we bring be viewed as natural? Even change itself is something completely natural, an important component of nature. Is managed land, which I view as less natural, actually just as natural? There's no real objective reason to say that managed land is less natural. We could say that extinction is natural, even at the rate of today as human induced selection is also natural selection. |
![]() |
|
| Mesopredator | Feb 23 2015, 07:36 AM Post #7 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I hope it is okay for me to do a double post. Maybe I'm not that good in making subjects discussable, and explaining my thoughts and concerns. I see I did put several concepts into one post, which might be confusing. Anyhow, I find it a bit sad we do not discuss matters like these as much as the more stereotypical parts of the forum. No offense, seriously (!), but most of the popular topics are of typical nature. I know, it was created for that purpose, and it is otherwise fine, but I feel we could still participate more in other conversations. And not all is lost and negative. I do feel however that nature is more and more becoming a commodity. Nature as in documentaries, articles and parks - stuff. If possible as far away from our daily life, only available if we want it and when we want it. Hence my weird interest in the anthropogenic novel nature which devies these laws, breaks free, and manages to hang on in an increasingly man-dominated world. Our identity is increasingly antropocentric, with nature playing less and less a role in it. See this is why I'm increasingly interested in that religious stuff, I feel we need something spirtual, or ideological for that matter, that connects us with nature. The transition from polythestic, to monothestic, towards humanism and now there is scientism and transhumanism - these are increasingly human-centered. The marketization also plays its parts, of course. This lady explained some of my thoughts clearly: What I think is important that we need a healthy balance between our species and the living world around us. Environmentalism shouldn't be misanthropy. It is not my intention by topics such as these and others by turning this forum into a political one. First and foremost this is a forum for animal enthusiasts and fun. Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 23 2015, 07:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 7574 | Feb 23 2015, 06:04 PM Post #8 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
maybe but us need save and spend animal |
![]() |
|
| Mesopredator | Feb 23 2015, 08:55 PM Post #9 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think our society makes it more difficult to do so. There's little room for nature outside fenced parks and "hypernatural" (=exclusion of anthropogenic features and heavily romanticised) documentaries. Nature can of course be problematic for our species such as with farming or being a direct threat to our safety, I understand. Even so, we are getting more and more out of touch so to speak. |
![]() |
|
| The All-seeing Night | Feb 23 2015, 10:26 PM Post #10 |
![]()
You are without honor
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please give a detailed definition of "nature". |
![]() |
|
| Mesopredator | Feb 24 2015, 12:20 AM Post #11 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nature would be all living things. Including humans. But not with humans as the centerpiece. |
![]() |
|
| Cape Leopard | Feb 24 2015, 01:47 AM Post #12 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This topic reminds me of the ScienceDaily article I read today: Fearless birds and big city spiders: Is urbanization pushing Earth's evolution to a tipping point? That humans and our cities build affect the ecosystem and even drive some evolutionary change is already known. What's new is that these evolutionary changes are happening more quickly than previously thought, and have potential impacts on ecosystem function on a contemporary scale. Not in the distant future, that is -- but now. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150218191549.htm Edited by Cape Leopard, Feb 24 2015, 01:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mesopredator | Feb 24 2015, 03:02 AM Post #13 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm running different concepts into one thread. It is confusing. In modernity, there's nature and there's man. Wild and pristine is nature. To me there's only nature. Man can exist outside of nature as a subject, but it is still nature. The common view is that we are outside of nature, and so there is a culture in which there is a divide between nature and man. This is all very philosopical and I'm still puzzling what I actually mean. But what you mention is relevant. Urban ecosystems are anthropogenic in their nature, but the animals are natural. It is sort of that nature says "away with your concept." We have man encrouching on what is considered to be wild, and wild encrouching on what is supposed man. Not in my view, because I argue that both are the same. We create this reality of a divide in man and nature. Life itself is closing the gap by adapting to manmade environments. If you do not follow all of this, I can understand. |
![]() |
|
| Cape Leopard | Feb 25 2015, 04:12 AM Post #14 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the concept is pretty straightforward, really ... Human perceptions of nature are actually very interesting to look at. Allow me to explore as I reflect on this: Human perceptions of nature are ultimately influenced by the surrounding environment in which we are raised. For the most part, urban and rural humans have very different viewpoints when it comes to experiencing and managing nature. Urban humans are, by and large, disconnected from nature - the most of nature that many urban dwellers will ever get to see locally are urban-adapted species: commensals of man (certain bird species, rodents, cats, etc) and wild animals that occupy generalist niches and are very adaptable. For too many, this disconnect alienates them from the true beauty of nature and they may occupy themselves with artificial substitutes instead (eg games such as Farmville, etc). It is a fact of psychology that we are wired to be in nature and with nature; therefore, it is not all that surprising that many mental diseases and disorders are on the rise, because the disconnect from nature has to have an impact on the human psyche. Rural people, in contrast, b and large have to deal with nature on a daily basis - they have to interact with facets of plant and animal biology all the time, be it with crops (growing times, resistance to disease) or livestock (feeding regimes eg grazing). In many areas, rural people have to think and worry about weather events that wouldn't even catch the attention of an urban dweller aside from a few muttered complaints. Ironically, it is rural dwellers who have the most impact on the environment, as in cities less energy and resources are used per person and dense urban areas (e.g. Manhattan in New York) are actually very Green. Urban people also tend to be very in favour of nature conservation and the non-lethal management of predators, while rural people tend to be suspicious of any government policy or proposal and often attempt to eradicate potential livestock predators and 'competition' for livestock, even when these measures may be counterproductive. Rural people also make use of destructive environmental practices in their usage of the land, such as the clearing of trees for crops. |
![]() |
|
| The All-seeing Night | Feb 25 2015, 06:07 AM Post #15 |
![]()
You are without honor
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
so, stop being so anhropocentric, is what you you are trying to express? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)





9:52 AM Jul 11