Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Natural Nature

Using "nature" as one thing in a specific field and then using it in a different way in another, I think is a big problem and where the main cultural confusion comes from. Mnay people agree that human beings are animals (those who do not admit I suppose would only be devoutly religious). But for some reason, perhaps the fact that humans have the capability to self reflect is why the majority of people place humans although animals outside the realm of nature. Many people think of nature apart from humans because of the societal/cultural definitions placed upon the word. The variety of meanings does not help to simplify the issue. In my environmental class nature is used to describe everything except humans, so it is not surprising that Professor Johnson received the reaction that he did in class today. I agree that there is nothing unnatural about human beings destroying their habitat, its just unnerving and horrible. The terms that we use in everyday life are being meant to mean one thing while their actual definition is perhaps very different. This complication of language is another way that humans with such "high" intelligence have made life more complex.

1 comment:

David K. Braden-Johnson said...

In my view, humans are (natural) animals, period. Some may stipulate, in order to reduce the complexity of our sentences, that "nature" excludes humans. The only problem is that this practice helps to perpetuate, however unconsciously, the myth that humans somehow rest "above," "beyond," or "outside" of nature -- oftentimes leading to exploitative or neglectful relations between humans and nonhuman nature.