Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I have a problem with the entire concept, because it implies that man is apart from nature, and not a part of it. It implies that we are not an integral part of the ecosystem, which we are. It implies that we somehow defy the laws of nature, which we do not. And lastly, it implies that we are inheretly bad and that everything we touch is corrupted.
|
Man IS a part of nature, although he's done a good job of--how best to put it?--removing himself from its immediete sphere, I suppose-- and therefore are NOT an integral part of the ecosystem any longer, except insofar as he tends to disrupt it. Instead of working within nature, mankind imposes artificiality in his dealings with his environment.
Now, that's only to be expected in some areas....We have poles and wires to convey electricity for the things that make our lives easier, we have medicines which help us live longer, and things of that nature. But we also have toxic waste dumps because we don't want to deal with the costs of disposing of it more efficiently. We have slums, and war, and toxic fumes from the vehicles we've invented to make our lives easier.
We don't defy the laws of nature. I don't know where that came from...and I don't think that a criticism of the way mankind handles his environment is necessarily an implication that he is "evil," or that everything he touches is corrupted. Mankind DOES have a tendency to "corrupt" something in the sense that if he believes that by using it in the way he wishes that it will benefit him (ie, razing a rainforest for the trees, chopping down trees for the wood and not planting replacements because of the expense it would entail, not installing filters on smokestacks because of the cost, etc.), and by doing this he not only destroys the environment around him, bit by bit, but also endangers his own species.
Mankind IS interconnected, but only in the sense that by destroying our environment, we endanger ourselves. I think that we're more dependent on our environment than the environment is dependent on us.
Mankind does good things, too, though. We have natural forests that are kept pristine (for the most part), and serve as a haven of safety for aspects of nature that would otherwise fall victim to "progress," the medicines he's created prevent epidemics of disease from wiping out whole cities of people.
The point, really, is that mankind tends to think of himself first, and "nature" last because he really doesn't consider himself "part of nature," but master of it...they may, in the abstract, see "mankind" as an organism that evolved within nature, but after that, they kind of separate themselves (for example, we say, "people and animals," as if people WEREN'T animals also).
I don't think that homo sapiens is evil, or that everything it does is corrupted. Mankind is quite capable of creating beauty and of attaining benevolent genius. But what he is capable of doing and what he does are often two different things, depending on the reigning values of the moment. After all, the bowerbird creates and paints a home for his mate...but he doesn't knock down a forest to do it.
All this from the definition of "natural...."
So who's in charge of zapping the mosquitoes? Or are we on our own with those, as well?
:p
