There will always be a separating line between humans and nature.
This is a value judgement. I agree with it but it is not a logical or scientificly proveable idea. Many religions believe this to be true but it is not a biologically or philosophically defenseable idea. I believe it to be true based on religious beliefs.
Where ever we go, there is an existing natural world in place and functioning before our arrival.
This is true of every living thing, not just man. So this does not distinguish us as being above or seperate from nature.
That natural world functions quite well without us, but we are reliant upon it for our survival. In that regard, we are not one and the same with nature; we are an invasive species.
Again, this is true of all things living and many things not living. So it does not distinguish us as being any different from any other living thing. Outside of religious belief we are nothing more than another evolved creatures just with different survival assets.
If humans disappeared from the face of the earth, very few undomesticated species would miss us one bit, in fact, their existence would be improved.
Again, this can be true of almost any individual species you wish to pick. So it does not make us unique. But, it is also somewhat untrue in that we have made increased populations of many species outside of domestic animals and plants. These species would decline.
And it is also an anthropomorphic (human centric) construct to assume that in the balance we harm or improve nature anymore than a beaver or an ant harms or improves nature. Outside of religious belief we are just other animals.
Seeing man as above and somehow responsible for his actions in nature is counter to strict scientific fact. Just because our brains make us different and just because we are at the top of most food chains does not make us super-natural. I believe, through faith, that we are above nature and we are responsible for how we use it. But outside of some form of faith based belief, there are no imperatives in regard to what we do or don't do to nature. That is were environmentalists have no sound argument for porper use of nature. Their ideas about proper use of nature are no more valid than mine, yours or anyone else's.
You are saying there is a place for beavers, but not in my draw. Beaver NIMBY
Bingo. In the same way you don't want rats in your bathroom, snakes in your bed or roaches in your cornflakes.
When will human habitation and control over the earth reach a saturation point where virtually every draw is someone's to control?
I don't know, but you seem to be saying that this conclusion is a bad thing. That is a value judgement based on your idea of how things should be. My picture for how things should be might include me controlling every inch of the planet. From a purely natural standpoint there is nothing morally wrong with that just as there is nothing worng with a male lion killing all the litters of little lions that are not his.
Or, so much of the earth is altered and controlled, that the inter-relationships and dependencies of flora and fauna break down or are disrupted to the point that nature fails.
This has happened many times before anything like man ever existed. Nature cannot fail. It can change, but not fail, at least not until the universe fails....but that is still only a failure because it is our value judgement. In reality, the final collapse of the universe is the most natural of all events.
What happens then? There is no more 'over there' as a good place for beavers. I believe we are on the threshold, within two to four generations, of being in that situation.
If you do not believe that we have a religious obligation to prevent this then there is nothing 'wrong' with that happening. As a species, without a god, we are under no obligation to make room for beavers or anything else we wish to be rid of. It might not be good for us in a practical sense, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong' attached to it. It is just one species excerting its natural influence on its surroundings.
Given that we are clueless as to how much we can safely alter the natural world around us and still survive, it makes sense to preserve some of that.
Sure. But preserving a redwood forest has nothing at all to do with our survival. Or snail darters or bald eagles.
Beyond survival, there are the aesthetics of nature to consider.
Amen. but what you consider beautiful I may consider ugly. Without a moral absolute its all just a matter of opinion. That's clearly not enoughto say we have to save this or that animal or region.
What sort of world are we passing on to future generations? I think it is time to figure out the hows and whats of that.
Historically, if you measure things like longevity, leisure time, healthcare, etc, we have changed the world for the better over the last five thousand years and this planet would hardly be recognizable to Columbus much less Moses.
Dave, I'm not intending to be a contrarian. I'm just trying to point out that many of the beliefs we have about nature are no more than beliefs. I have mine you have yours. But most beliefs, outside of a strict material, evolutionarily based outlook of nature in which we are just another animal, are either based on our own opinion and aesthetic or on our religious beliefs.
I believe God gave us the world to use and to protect. So in the end I agree with most of your concerns because I think it is our responsibility. But I do not agree that there is a valid scientific or philosphical basis for your concerns or mine.
