the divide between humans and animals part two

I have talked about this a few times before, but it is a question that continues to puzzle me and I seem to become lost in thought when I try to think about it. It’s really an interesting topic, are humans natural? Is what we do natural? What has led us to seem to believe or perceive that we aren’t natural? My last post brought up comments like where we draw the line on what is natural about humans and what is not, or are we natural but the progress we make isn’t?

Now, close your eyes and picture a wide-open field, or the mountains, or some serene landscape that seems nearly untouched by humans. Whatever you chose to picture probably seems much more natural, per say, than a town or the K-State campus. But the question is, is it more natural, or is that just what we perceive it as?

Next, picture a beaver dam on a river. Does the beaver dam you pictured seem more natural than the house you live in? I mean, they are essentially the same thing, but for two different animals, but it seems many people see a beaver dam as more natural than a house.

What I think causes this divide is simply the far more advanced brain humans have. Our advanced thought puts us so far ahead of most species that is almost like we are completely separate from them, like there are animals and then humans rather than just animals. It is hard to see ourselves as animals sometimes because of the divide we have created from the other species inhabiting earth, but that is exactly what we are, animals.

This week in class we talked a lot about conserving nature. What does that really mean? Isn’t the whole world nature? Even the places inhabited by humans? Why does conserving nature always have to do with places not already inhabited or removing the people that already lived there? And who’s to say nature even needs to be conserved? It seems we only ever seem to conserve nature to protect it against humans, never to protect it against other species of animals. If a different animals species were destroying the environment in some way do you think measures would be taken to prevent that destruction? Probably not, because we see what other animals do as natural so that destruction would probably also be seen as natural. Yet, when humans destroy something, it is seen as unnatural and as something that needs to be fixed.

For a second, put down all your prior beliefs, opinions and anything else about whether not what humans do is natural and believe that everything we do is natural, and therefore any effects are also natural. Do you still see climate change as a bad thing? What about drilling for oil? Or burning fossil fuels, or emitting too much carbon dioxide into the air, or using way too much plastic? Are these still destructive things that need to be stopped if everything humans do is completely natural and at the same level as another animal? So, yes maybe all these things are still bad, or have at least some negative effects on the earth, but if they are naturally occurring bad things, do they need to be stopped? Maybe stopping them is the unnatural thing to do? If what we do is natural, then one could say that stepping in to stop or reverse the negative side effects is the unnatural thing.

The problem is, everyone has a different opinion on this topic, so we may never come to a conclusion, or it may take a long time, but I challenge to push your thoughts on this topic and try and think a little differently than you may have before.