It seems to me that these ecologists might need to read Ishmael by
Daniel Quinn, if not an introductory Ecology text.
There might be a fair proportion of humans (particularly Americans)
that think this, but certainly not ecologists. It seems that this
could be a fair question to ask to determine if a scientist is an
ecologist or not.
On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:11 AM, William Silvert 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
Howard H. Whiteman
Department of Biological Sciences
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071-0009
Phone: (270) 809-6753
FAX: (270) 809-2788
http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/Howard.Whiteman/whiteman.htm
"Time is like a fuse--short and burning fast" ---Metallica
"You can take the people out of Pittsburgh, but you will never take
the Pittsburgh out of people"--Bill Cowher
"Being me is a full time job, and I haven't missed a day yet"--Stephen
Colbert
"In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can
change it"--Barak Obama
"Play without fear and you will be successful! See you at center
ice."--Mario Lemieux
