(no title)
nfg | 4 years ago
The trouble with this sort of quasi-dualistic general statement in my experience is it doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny by domain experts. Another way of looking at this is that humans have shaped their “wild” environment to their advantage which is something many animals do. The trouble is in defining wild here - your point rests heavily on a definition along the lines of “shaped entirely by non-human forces” which is a circular argument. For example (and I’m no expert) but think of dam making by beavers and whether the resulting pools which expand their habitat and food are “wild”?
I’d agree with you that there is a qualitative difference between say industrial society and the rest of the animal world, but it’s not easy to nail down that difference in a way which doesn’t wind up excluding much of human history.
red75prime|4 years ago
ekianjo|4 years ago
redis_mlc|4 years ago
We can see the Great Wall of China from space.
And we can also see beaver dams from space.
(Note the Great Wall was built for a mundane reason - the Han people couldn't defeat the Mongols on horseback, but they could keep building walls until the horses could no longer enter. Byzantium/Constantinople also adopted that strategy, which worked for over 1,000 years until the Ottomans built the world's largest cannon and blasted holes in it.)
Others|4 years ago
azundo|4 years ago
wombatmobile|4 years ago
If you weren't impressed when you read the above sentence, imagine how algae feel when they read your sentence about the Great Wall of China.
ekianjo|4 years ago