Hi, The book "1491" by Charles C. Mann is an excellent reference on this question. In my opinion, humans are an integral part of nature, especially within my field of interest, restoration ecology. One classic example of the importance of humans is anthropogenic fire. According to Stephen Pyne, historically only about 10% of the fires in North America were ignited by lightning (N.B. this estimate varies regionally). Without human-induced fire, the forests of the East and the grasslands and savannas of the Midwest's Prairie Peninsula would have been very different ecosystems. Consideration of the historic relationships between humans and their environment is an important part of the process of setting restoration goals. However, I think there may be an interesting argument about making a distinction between pre- and post-fossil fuel empowered humans, and whether modern humans are less a part of nature as a consequence of tapping into this ancient energy resource. Such are my thoughts this morning.
-Ryan On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM, William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>wrote: > 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 > -- Ryan Klopf Doctoral Student Southern Illinois University Department of Plant Biology Center for Ecology Office: 618-453-3209 Mobile: 571-224-3678
