Bill,
First you must define what you mean as "part of nature." The trivial
definition is that nature is everything, in which case, man is part of
nature. On the other hand, if you mean nature as ecological processes,
man is not necessarily part of all ecological processes, but then,
neither is anything else. I have a feeling that what is meant by "man as
part of nature" is something else, and it is probably ambiguous and will
need be defined in practice.
Jim
William Silvert wrote on 08-Aug-09 13:11:
An anthropologist writing on another mailing list wrtoe that "...
human beings, and indeed human cultures, have developed as a part of
evolutionary processes. This is something that a fair proportion of
ecologists do not acknowledge. At my Ph.D. institution, I have had
ecologists tell me that humans ARE NOT part of nature!" I find this
statement remarkable, and would like to know whether it is indeed true
that "a fair proportion of ecologists" feel that "humans ARE NOT part
of nature". Comments on this would be welcome.
Bill Silvert
--
P.S. Nunca use acentuação em nomes de arquivos em anexo!
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Casa: 55 41 36730409
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
