This is an interesting conversation...... Of course, ALL of us came to this point on account of Nature. Mother Nature, for me, includes the physical sciences, as well - Physics, Chemistry and their interactions over Time. I have certainly given much thought to "Gaia". But all ideas must inevitably be subject to/defined by the imperfect thought processes of collective humans. I do think that there are many humans who would strive to "rise" to higher existential levels. Is not technology leading the way? Maybe we are now directing human evolution. Question: What would the horse have looked like today, had we not intervened 6000 years ago? I sometimes wonder if there are some who would be more suited to the kind of space travel that would span generations. Would some humans be entirely content with strip malls and burger joints or the advantages of the city, which is, after all, an anthropogenic environment. Some people are content to work and be entertained at leisure by fantasies created in Hollywood. I would say that most humans are locked into a daily struggle with Nature and her commandments for food, shelter, a family, and the demands of culture. Many conservation programs today in various countries are calling for more ownership and inclusion in the processes that would ultimately save biological species. Many human ethnic groups are treated very similarly to non-human groups that are being managed for preservation. That definition very definitely recognizes that humans are tied to natural biological processes. I recall, when taking Zoology 001 so many years ago that we cannot "escape" Nature because: "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny". We cannot explain away that the salinity of our internal circulation approximates sea water. Some of us won't admit that the "groty" lower life forms have paved the way for our existence. We owe worms, bacteria, slime molds, etc our daily existence. If you will "Thanks be To God's life support system" -- may it live long and prosper.... >From biology comes bilateral symmetry -- the "wisdom" of time/evolution has >permitted us better survival designs. Organic hormones have permitted paternalistic/maternalistic behaviors which I am certain, figured mightily in human evolotion/success. The autonomic/parasympathetic system and the "intelligence" of DNA automatically smoothes the way for our daily existence -- Thank Goodness we don't have to think about it. Many people, unfortunately, have medical problems which require expensive anthropogenic drugs to further the quality of their lives. For most of us, fortunately, all we have to do is remember what we learned in primary school to think about what we eat a bit and our bodies will practice "preventive maintenance" for us. Getting back to hormones and behaviors, there are those who believe that more maternalistic control over the nation's economic system might ulimately produce less risky business practices and invest/safeguard in human matters closer to home. I would also wish to have such individuals more involved with health care plans everybody HAS to have and ways to assist the "steady state", environmental services of 'Gaia", to make life better for humans and animals and, of course, to make a profit.
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote: From: William Silvert <[email protected]> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are humans part of nature? To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:11 AM 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
