Is man a natural part of the environment?

Question

I've heard so many environmentalist types condemn man's activities to unnatural phenomenon. We are made up of the same things the rest of earth and it's life are.

Couldn't you make the argument that our harvesting of fossil fuels serves some sort of cosmic purpose. Perhaps our actions are not so foreign.

Bees harvest pollen without realizing the wider function they perform. Whose to say freeing locked up CO2 is not one function of humanity?

Answer 1

If your idea of natural is sucking black goo out of the earth, "refining" it, and burning it in a manufactured hunk of metal and plastics (more petroleum), which is manufactured by more refined and engineered metal and plastics, then I guess by your definition everything associated with humans is natural. Except that your definition is illogical. Where in nature do you see an automobile naturally occurring, or a power plant? They don't without intelligent beings with the cognitive ability to affect their surroundings. Everything else in nature works in equilibrium, except humans.

Spin it however you want, but you can't get past the fact that we can affect the environment. This has to be one of the greatest uses of the human brain for the purpose of denial I've ever encountered!

Answer 2

Depends on how you define natural. We may have started off natural but are increasingly becoming out of touch with nature by using harmful chemicals, spewing pollution into the environment, clear cutting and burning large swaths of forests just to raise more meat we really didn't need in the first place,etc.

There is nothing natural about what we are doing if you define natural as living in harmony with nature. All unnatural acts in regards to environmental degradation really come down to one thing, our mindset. We believe that nature is something that can be owned, that we are better than it and the creatures that inhabit it.

This disrespect doesn't escape the confines of karma. We are degrading our biosphere to the point we may very likely not be able to exist in it anymore, nor want to. That is if we do not do a 180 degree about race in our attitudes and actions.

There is still time. The real question is are there enough of us who care to reach the critical mass necessary to influence the vast majority of the world citizens.

I surely hope so or else why would I even bother writing this response. There is much work is ahead of us so lets not tarry and just do what needs to be done.

Answer 3

Sure.  Global warming is not "unnatural" in that sense.

But if we do nothing this change, natural or not, will cost us a WHOLE LOT of money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...

Probably best to avoid that, as much as we can.  "Natural" or not.

Answer 4

Sure are.   Internal combustion engines are not though.

Answer 5

One "cosmic purpose" the harvesting of fossil fuels will serve is to teach galactic anthropologists just how quickly a species can annihilate itself and pollute their environment beyond the point of no return. Other cultures may benefit by Man's stupidity!

Answer 6

we are from the earth and of the earth.  we are a part of nature thus part of the environment, not apart from it.

Answer 7

Sure humans are part of nature.  But that doesn't mean we are immune to seriously damaging our own habitat.  We are the only species capable of such extensive environmental change. We can use that capability wisely, so that it's good for us and other species (since we are more dependent than most people think) or we can use it foolishly harming both ourselves and countless other species.

Answer 8

I totally agree. Man has his place on this earth, and belongs here. We might be human, but we are still animals-like it or not. I also believe that removing man from the environment where man has roamed since man has existed via Wilderness Areas-(practically impossibile to access) is creating an unnatural nature, and offsetting the balance of everything. Animals, and humans are learning to forget what each other are. Some think this is a good thing. I think it's ridicilously stupid.

As for climate...Twenty years ago it was going to be a global ice age. Ten years ago it was global warming. Now the phrase is 'climate change.' They have no clue, but they have government funding, and a $75,000+ income that tells them that they are smarter than us.

Answer 9

Gotta give you credit for creativity in trying to justify our actions and the consequences (LOL)!

Yes, we're part of it (like it or not).  Organisms that are harmful to their own food chain die off, and if they alter the entire environment they're living in, they are at a high risk for extinction.

I would have to conclude that since we did not gradually evolve using increasing amounts of fossil fuels, that our use of fossil fuels fails the "natural purpose" test (nice try though).

For the religiously inclined, our willfully choosing to bring about our own destruction could serve a purpose.  The Bible predicts in Revelation chapter 11 verse 18:

"God will destroy the destroyers of the earth"

It sure looks like people continuing to emit greenhouse gases without offsetting carbon credits (or anyone advocating that lifestyle) fits the description of "destroyers of the earth".

Answer 10

If you have to reach as far as the "cosmic purpose" argument to justify befouling the only planet we have in our repertoire,  all I can say is 'good for you.'  

If for no other reason than we claim to be more intelligent, we should assume a stewardship role in our planet, and ensure good care -- the best of care -- is taken of Planet Earth.  This serves our interests, as almost everything we've done to degrade the planet comes back at us in a negative way.  If we treat the planet well, we treat ourselves well.  

Our carbon footprint is horrific, and we need to deal with that before we can say we're a 'natural part of the environment.'