| 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 (1,767 Views) | |
| Mesopredator | Feb 26 2015, 12:43 AM Post #16 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In a way. Conservationists are not anthropocentric for example, but act more phobic of the anthropogenic. What both do is make nature and human seperable, but I view it as holistic. Another concept is not so much anthropocentric per se, but the disappearance and seperation of nature in culture, or yes, the anthropocentricism in culture. We see that nature is being turned into a market product, or, and, into a fetish (if I understand the philosophical concept of fetish correctly). It is no longer part of us, but a seperate package. True nature is untouched, pristine, wilderness - fetish. Documentary in particular focus on this type of nature which I consider to be non-existant in the modern world. Where I live, natural areas themselves are no longer nature, but nature as shaped by man. This is problematic because here I view it as seperable. I do so because they are managed in a way that turns them into ecosystems that cannot exist without the management. They are not the result of interactive forces of both man and nature, but the whole shaping of man. Unnatural. Interestingly nature itself is beginning to emerge itself in otherwise man-dominated areas, such as cities. This is the result of interactive forces between man and nature. Natural. I feel that I'm being a bit contradictive. So, let me say that I consider that to be managed as unnatural. Which is still problematic, but it is the best I can think of. In reality, managed ecosystems are not fully unnatural because some is natural. A garden or reserve might be managed, the organisms still live outside of this "management". The managed is like a matrix that behaves as intended by a creator, unnatural. That which doesn't behave as intended, or behaves outside of intention, is natural. Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 26 2015, 12:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| DinosaurFan95 | Feb 26 2015, 04:21 AM Post #17 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In short, yes: We are a part of nature, and nature is a part of us. |
![]() |
|
| Mesopredator | Mar 1 2015, 06:18 AM Post #18 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was getting tired of this topic too, but here you go: http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2015/02/12/aldo-explains-it-all/ This is relevant to my discussion. EDIT: if not a bit short... Edited by Mesopredator, Mar 1 2015, 06:20 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « 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