Exotic Humans

Kohak made a very interesting point when he described humans as being animals that “stand out of nature”. Kohak, when quoting Everden, also described humans as ‘naturally exotic’. The implications of this idea are multilayered. Does this mean that humans can’t fit into nature? Can humans have no natural habitat? Do humans necessarily destroy habitats by our existence? Or have humans truly lost the ability to act naturally?
As Kohak likes to point, out humans are indeed animals. Therefore it only stands to reason that humans will prosper in certain climates more than others, however, humans live from pole to pole. Is there a one place for humans? Humans manage to live in Siberia and the Arctic primarily through the use of technology and artificial housing. The real question then is whether or not it is ‘unnatural’ to make these dwellings. Certainly we draw a distinction between what is artificial and what is natural. Nevertheless, many animals also make their own shelters, such as the beaver, bird nests, etc. Are these dwellings also artificial because they were not provided for by nature? We need to broaden our definition of artificial. Humans build structures perhaps through reason, but the drive and the need is instinctual and obvious. The same could be said of nesting birds, who build their nest out of the need of shelter.Wherever humans go the apex predator of the area is the first to suffer, such as wolves (North America), bears (Europe) etc. It is impossible for humans to live along side other animals in their own habitat, just as it is impossible for a bear to live with deer. Humans naturally scare animals, just as a bear would scare a deer. Certainly habitats suffer when humans do not control their consumption or the land itself, but since humans are such a versatile creature that can live anywhere it does not seem necessary to destroy these habitats. Humans may never frolic with the woodland creatures, but the forests do not need to be paved.