Humans are competent to do many things. But I do not think we are competent to run a global ecosystem. Something has been irretrievably lost by the time we begin to believe that we can manage nature for people. The essence of nature is that it is not “for people.”

The 17 Percent Problem and the Perils of Domestication
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: August 13, 2007
The New York Times

While I agree that humans are struggling to manage our influence on nature, and that our inability to manage the resources on this planet may pose a threat to our survival and the survival of other organisms, I don't see what other alternative we have. It's not as if, absent the influence of humans "nature" manages itself. A world without humans isn't like the garden of eden, species will still go extinct, and climates will still change. But the course of those changes will occur in a vastly different way without us. It is wrong to simply assume that wild, uncultivated lands and natural resources are inherently good.

The environmental movement arose as a reaction to the 19th and early 20th century notions that nature was wild, untamed and primarily benefited from the influence of humans. It recognized humans as a potentially destructive force. However, it also romanticized the idea of wild nature. I think we're finally coming to a kind of crossroads in the environmental movement where we can let go of that notion. Humans are a part of nature. Human forces are natural and natural forces are neither inherently good nor bad.

It has taken a long times for people to recognize our power to influence the environment in negative ways with respect to our future survival. There is still resistance to this idea, like those who resist the notion that extinction or global warming is due to human actions.

There are two main points I'm making here:

1. Stop romanticizing nature.
2. Recognize that humans are a force of nature.

It's childish to hope that, if we simply withdraw influence, "nature" will automatically solve the problems we have created.

Global warming and the rusted '57 Plymouth from Tulsa, OK

I have a guest piece up at bagnewsnotes.com. Please check it out.

read more | digg story

←-→

Humans are often seen as destructive forces in the places we inhabit. This is, in part, because human beings consume the resources required for human life, and through our presence we can render fertile land barren, forests empty and fisheries devoid of life. The creation of human dwellings destroys the original contours of the land and renders once wild environments unrecognizable. Because cities take this type of transformation to the ultimate extreme some people view them as the emblem of environmental destruction. If the presence of human beings destroys the environment what could be more destructive than the intensive population density of cities? This argument is flawed in two ways: first it neglects the fact that the density of cities allows for more efficient land use-- not only in terms of people's homes, but also in terms of the efficiency of use of agricultural lands that support the city. It is also flawed because it fails to recognize the positive influence of people on the places they inhabit when those places are urban and made for human interaction. It also fails to recognise the city as a kind of natural environment.
( Read more... )

Last: 5. Living Sacred Places
Next: 7. Graffiti

From: The Urban Naturalist.