Human Imposition

We have brought up the effects of human imposition on nature numerous times in class. Kohak defines humans as exotic animals - animals that have no natural habitat, but are able to survive in nearly any location. He also discusses how humans are destructive to the world because they exploit nature and other beings around them, overpopulate, and waste resources. One of the major themes within in the text is to discuss ways for society to change in order to be less harmful to nature and other animals. While it is true that humans have a responsibility to nature and do cause ecological problems, I think that it is unfair to label everything that is produced or destroyed by mankind as negative or harmful. Why is it that something that is manmade is less aesthetically pleasing than a natural landscape? Furthermore, there is this overarching concept that seems to label humans as unnatural or as alienated from nature; however, humans are a product of nature. Like all other animals, a primal nature is intrinsic - in humans it manifests itself differently, but the struggle to survive and the necessity to destroy other species is similar to any other type of animal. If a natural predator, like a shark or a bear, kills another animal, we chalk it up to a natural cycle and necessity. That predator needs to kill to survive and if the prey goes uneaten, it will multiply and eventually destroy the ecosystem. In terms of humans, humans are often considered cruel for killing even plantlife. I am not saying that humans have the right to destroy nature as we please. I do think, though, that it is unfair to give everything that humans do a negative connotation.