| 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: |
| Define nature | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 24 2015, 11:45 PM (516 Views) | |
| Mesopredator | Mar 24 2015, 11:45 PM Post #1 |
|
Disaster taxa
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would like to discuss about the definition of nature, ecosystem specific. I made a sort of essay to put forward my definition, and some argumentation. A question I would like to ask: should I've put this in a blog instead? I would like to discuss this but by making such a long essay and by already providing my own view, maybe I make that unattractive? I can fully understand that not everbody wants to read a wall of text, or that beginning with my own suggestion I make it less open ended. The reason I do this, is to build arguments for my personal environmental philosophy. So here's my definition, feel free to create your own or to criticise mine: [In context of ecosytems]: Nature: that which does not require continuous human intervention to continue to exist. This includes mountains [abiotic] flora and fauna [biotic] and the combination [ecosystems] Culture: that which requires continuous (in this case) human intervention to continue to exist Anthropogenic nature: that which is rooted in human intervention but does not necessary require human intervention to exist. This means that: A nature reserve, or ecosystem, that requires management, which is continuous human intervention to exist, be it in its current form, is not nature but culture. If a change is made by humans which determines how this ecosystem works or comes to be, it anthropogenic as it is rooted in human intervention. If this anthropogenic ecosystem needs human intervention to stay that way, it is cultural, if it stays that way without intervention or independently develops in a novel ecosystem it is nature, be it anthropogenic nature. The devil's garden made by ants, would be the animal equivalent of culture. In this case, it requires continuous intervention by the ants to exist. I use intervention to differ from interaction, interaction meaning that there's interaction with the ecosystem, which in turn might influence the ecosystem. The difference here is, that intervention has a clear goal, the influence is induced, whereas with interaction the influence is spontanous, or without goal. Deer browsing the forest do not browse to create a particular state of the forest, their action is not intended to change the forest, has no goal to the forest, and the results on the forest are byproducts. A human cutting a tree would not be intervention, unless the action of cutting a tree is meant to induce particular changes to the forest to create a certain state. A chair build from wood is intended, thus cultural, and couldn't have existed without this kind of intervention [Problem: can this account as intervention?] Does this mean that nature is always better as culture? If biodiversity is what we want, sometimes we might want culture as it can create more biodiversity, but my thesis is, that we can't call it nature. We can't call it nature as nature is unintentional whereas culture is intentional [Problem: if anthropogenic changes result in the creation of the prefered ecosystem, or the former ecosystem, which can exist without human intervention, isn't it culture? I say anthropogenic nature.] So I've added another layer to my definition now, which is; intentional or unintentional. That which is created intentional, is culture, that which is created unintentional is nature. So: [In context of ecosytems]: Nature: spontanous system [=unintentional], that which does not require continuous human intervention to continue to exist. This includes mountains [abiotic] flora and fauna [biotic] and the combination [ecosystems] Culture: intentional system, that requires continuous (in this case) human intervention to continue to exist Anthropogenic nature: that which is rooted in human intervention but does not necessary require human intervention to exist. I understand there are still flaws but this is how I see it. By this defninition the pollution of our air or seas would not be culture, but a byproduct or direct result from it, thus anthropogenic. The results of this, are spontanous. Case of example, the plastisphere. It is human induced, non-intentional, thus anthropogenic. Does it require constant human intervention? No. Can it continue to exist without humans? No, but it is still the result of interaction not intervention. Here is when my definition gets problematic: Dutch inland moorland. It is not intentionally made, yet it does somewhat require continuous human intervention to exist, be it by sheep. The sheep wouldn't be there if not for the human intervention, right? We put the sheep there, continuously. The city. The city is intentionally made, even if some of it might be a bit spontanous, and most of it requires continuous human intervention to exist. Yet the fauna and flora there do not require human intervention to exist. Problematic. The city requires human intervention, and the flora and fauna require the city. What makes the difference here is the added intentional, because most of the flora and fauna in cities is unintentional and it is the result of interaction with the city. As such, I would call this anthropogenic, but not culture. Culture would be the gardens that are managed in a intentional state. Maybe I undermine myself with this, but: It is perfectablly reasonable that I use this definition to fit my believe set, and that it is inherently biased; subjective. I did provide some measurements, but at its core it is still subjective. That is however not to say that other defininitions are not subjective. Thoughts? So by this system. If we were to create a reserve to its former natural state, it will always be anthropogenic. It can become nature, but will thus always be anthropogenic - because we caused it to refer back to its former state. If it requires constant management, human intervention, it is culture even if it was the original natural state. Can it continue to exist without constant management, human intervention, it is nature. The creation of the state is intentional, thus cutural, but if it can continue to undergo change without intention it can still be natural; nature. Edited by Mesopredator, Mar 26 2015, 04:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |





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



9:47 AM Jul 11