Maybe the underlying question is: are we (humans) and our society subjected to the same laws, rules and processes as any other communities in living systems all over the world. To some degree the answer might seem to be "no": with the apparition of extrasomatic adaptation (learning) and the intensive extrasomatic energy utilization, which made our species extremely competitive, many new complex emergent structures arose with their new sets of processes and rules, which are not to be observed in any "natural" systems. But when it comes down to the fundamental laws of nature, like the three (four?!) laws of thermodynamics, these are definitely universal, setting the direction and drawing the limits to "evolution" (both natural and cultural). So fundamentally we are indeed a part of Nature, and it would be great foolishness to act as if we were not (but unfortunately we still do this...)
Actually it is typically not ecologists, but _economists_ who question humanity being subjected to any limits, and thus suggest humanity not being a part of nature, but rather some sort of independent entity -- just think of Julian Simon and the popular "cornucopian" school of economic thought... Best regards, Bálint -- Bálint Czúcz Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-2163 Vácrátót, Alkotmány u. 2-4. HUNGARY Tel: +36 28 360122/137 +36 70 7034692 magyar nyelvű blog: http://atermeszettorvenye.blogspot.com/ On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 02:37, Serge Farinas<[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
