That does seem very strange to me that an ecologist would say that. Many scientists may have historically held those assumptions based on religious and cultural indoctrination but it seems pretty antiquated now.
Humans are just like other animals in most ways. We compete with many organisms for resources and have mutually beneficial relationships with others. Ecologically as a species, we probably have a unique and unprecedented impact in the kinds of ecosystems we create and the degree to which we alter and organize them. A plane ride from the ESA conference really drove that point home. It staggering. An outside observer would think we were obsessed with Euclidean geometry if looking down on our human dominated landscapes. Serge Farinas My music: www.myspace.com/simbelmynemusic Serge Alexander Fariñas ESA SEEDS Fellowship Alumni University of Michigan Frontier Master's Ecology and Evolutionary Biology [email protected] 678) 925-4473 --- On Sat, 8/8/09, elkmantom <[email protected]> wrote: From: elkmantom <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are humans part of nature? To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:01 PM Bill, How could Humans not be part of nature? Are we not living organisms? I feel as though this conversation is better suited for a Sunday school class. Sorry... Tom In a message dated 08/08/09 10:17:36 Mountain Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: 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
