Since the two texts we read and watched for these blog posts were about the definition of nature, the first obvious trend seen through this thread is a continuation of what that definition is. McKibben and Marris have pretty different ideas of what nature means to them, but people also seem to be concerned not only with defining nature, but how that definition changes the way we interact with it. What do we do when humans take scenes of nature and then politicize it? Is this right? Is it even possible to portray nature without politicizing it? What do we do when nature is destructive? Through our definitions of nature, is it nature that's doing the destroying, or is it humans?
How we chose to see and define nature changes the way we see ourselves and our understanding of humans' roles on earth. It seems that most people align themselves with Marris' perspective on nature; that since we are also animals, we are always going to be a part of nature, and that it is impossible to completely separate the human from the nonhuman environment around us. Defining nature, then, seems to also be a question of defining humanity. What is our purpose in nature? What is our purpose (in general)? What doe sit mean to be in nature; and by default, what does it mean to be human?
No comments:
Post a Comment