A part or apart?

[rckymntnspirit]

When I was studying for a quiz for my natural resource policy class this question posed by George Perkins Marsh was interesting to me:

Is man a part of or apart from nature?

I recently wrote an entry in my livejournal about this but I was curious to see what others thought.

Just for background info: George Perkins Marsh wrote a book called Man and Nature in the late 1800s. He studied many ancient civilizations that fell and the reasons they fell. One of the unifying themes was that the civilizations depleted their natural resources. This was written during the time that the United States was worried about a great timber famine.

So thoughts?

[Thylae]

Honestly I think man is very much both a part and apart from nature. I think he unconciously tries to pull himself apart, all the while thinking he is doing what is "right". Yet, there is not real way to separate ourselves from nature as we are in fact animals. Man claims to be something godly, not an animal. This, scientifically is not the case. In fact, I believe that man is still very much attached to nature. Look at all the times that people have gone looking to live in the woods, or in the Alaskan wilderness. This is because of our need to still be a part of nature. Even simple things like feelings of peace while at the beach or in the woods...those are all linked to our being still part of nature.

Of course, of the people that have tried to survive on their own in the wilderness, few have lived to tell the tale. This is mainly because of our lack of knowledge on how to survive, which needless to say, we have lost. We had that knowledge before.

Thus I conclude personally that humans are still part of nature, always will be, but are becoming slightly detached.



-Sekkada

[RedFeather]

Humans are a part of nature. But they think that they're apart from nature.

[rckymntnspirit]

I think it's a very ambiguous question and it was interesting watching my classmates along with myself struggle with this question when it was first presented to us. We're all natural resource majors and we're used to generally viewing the human population as irresponsible towards nature, thus our purpose. But then how do we describe ourselves since we are generally friendly towards nature and try to minimize our ecological footprint?

I also had a conversation with my dad that was similar to this question. I personally feel that at some point technology goes too far and ceases being "natural" (I don't really know where I draw that line yet, this was the predominant part of the conversation, where do you draw the line between natural and unnatural?)

I personally think that while humans are part of nature physically (genetics, evolutionary ancestry and all that) at some point there was a spiritual loss for many individuals in today's society. As someone studying environmental education I hear a lot about this. People are getting further and further detached from nature emotionally and are becoming poor stewards because of it. I've read a great deal of Ricard Louv's Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from Nature deficit disorder because one of my professors feels that it is a worthwhile read. Louv describes how this detachment from nature is largely occuring and suggestions for its remedy and overall importance of children having contact in nature.

In environmental ed there is a guy named Sobel and he has this three stages the first of which is empathy followed by knowledge and societal consciousness about the natural world. I think many people today have missed the important empathy stage and were thrown right into knowledge and hearing television shows about how the rainforest is being destroyed. So many people miss the vital empathy stage and generally can't ever have the same emotional connection with nature as someone who grew up playing outside.

I recently had to do a survey and evaluate someone's relationship with nature and what I've discovered is that at least in the few people I interviewed is that there is an underlying connection to nature but they can no longer consciously reach it. My roomate had the hardest time trying to put what she thought nature was into words. In the end she contradicted herself every time. It was really interesting.

I think I may have rambled a bit there and probably gave out more info about environmental ed than anyone wanted to know but I suppose my answer right now knowing and experiencing what I have is that while their bodies may be connected to nature, most people are no longer connected to nature emotionally/spiritually.

[seer15]

rckymntnspirit said:

I recently had to do a survey and evaluate someone's relationship with nature and what I've discovered is that at least in the few people I interviewed is that there is an underlying connection to nature but they can no longer consciously reach it. My roomate had the hardest time trying to put what she thought nature was into words. In the end she contradicted herself every time. It was really interesting.

I think that man is a part of nature. However, in recent times man has tried to "rise above" mother nature, so to speak, because that is just human nature and perhaps the nature of all things- to conquer, to rise above. So naturally, man would do the same thing with nature. Now that people are "above" nature (and refer to beings as humans, animals, and plants,) most have lost touch with the side of them that connects with nature. In a way, they almost are preventing themselves from connecting with nature (which they do) by their thought that they are separate from nature.

My belief, is that no matter how much man tries to separate themselves from nature, they will never truly do so and therefore will always be a part of nature.

[Equinuus-Felinity]

I agree with Seer

Man tries to conquer everything (and in his foolishness, believes he can). But we are always a part of nature, whether we like it or not. We exist, and we cannot exist without nature, we cannot exist anywhere but in nature (where would we put our homes? build our homes with? what would we eat?). No matter how much man denies this, it is true. Nature gives to us, and we give back (sometimes what we give is not so good).

But in the same breath I have to say that man is also apart from nature, because of his stupidity in thinking that he can rule all, conquer all, and do without all.

*shakes head* Anywho, that's my rant on it

[Earth Listener]

I’ve always looked at it as both ways. Man is apart from nature because man often does not respect natures boundaries and balances but nevertheless man is still a part of nature as a whole for nature still effects man and man still effects nature. Man may try and distance themselves from nature as best they can but they will never completely.

[trissana]

man is a part of nature, like all the other creatures out there. as a saying in wicca once said, "we are not superior nor inferior in this world. we are just part of it."

[Jared]

Our species lives in this world and interacts with this world, so I would say we are a part of it. I also think that we are apart from this world, because we were given dominion over the plants and animals in it by God, and because man is an eternal being, and the world as we know it is going to pass away. So I would say it is both.

[Chrysanta]

Man and animal, like said many times, are both the same thing only man has a higher brain capability. With this advanced form of thinking came discovery of new things, this also led to the destruction of much nature. For example: Every new home costs trees/mud/bricks/etc. to build it. I believe the more we destroy nature, the more we are pulled away from it.