Interconnected
“Loving nature is not the same as understanding it.” Like the majority of the human race, Harriet in Gary Larson’s [JH1] book, There’s a Hair in my Dirt, “‘not only [misunderstand] the things she saw – vilifying some creatures while romanticizing others, - but also her connection to them’” (Larson 1998). The human race is one big Harriet; we see what is on the surface and never truly understand what lies beneath because we fail to even look. In order to understand ourselves, we must first understand what makes us and shapes us.
Perhaps this is why we should understand biodiversity and the effects it has on us and science. All living things need each other to survive. We need the trees to breathe, they need us to produce CO2 for photosynthesis, and they also need the worms to cultivate the land for rich soil. Hence, we could imply that we need the worms to breathe. It’s more than that, though. The whole concept of biology, or even science, revolves around the intricate connections between all of its aspects.
We need to understand biodiversity to understand our connections to all living things. In order to understand biodiversity we need to use systematics. In order to understand systematics we need to understand taxonomy, phylogeny, evolution and all the other parts. Every part of who we are is saturated in everything around us and yet we do not even try to take the time to absorb a drop of it. Despite the fact that we consider ourselves to be the most intelligent of the species living on this planet today, our egos and independence, our ignorance and manipulation, allow the understanding of our very existence on this earth to pass us by. In order to truly understand who we are, we need to come nose to nose with the earthworms.
In understanding biodiversity, we will be able to harvest the benefits that come from it. Not only will we be able to understand our connections with all living things, but our connection with the environment as well.
Human beings have made much of purity and are repelled by blood, pollution, putrefaction (Snyder, 119). Nature is sacred. We are enjoying it and destroying it simultaneously. Sometimes it is easier to see charming things than the decomposition hidden in the “shade”.We only notice the beautiful side of nature, which are benefits that nature brings us: food, fresh air, water, landscapes. But we forget the other side, the rottenness of human destruction. That is how human beings create “the other side of the sacred”. We cut trees for papers, but we fail to recognize that the lack of trees is the lack of fresh air. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge “the other side of the
The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally
Lopez invites us to partake in the spiritual connection we share with nature and history, which awards us both independence in our world and compelling attachment to it. He bids us to notice the "complexity of [nature's] beauty" (54), and-like the effect it continues to have on Barry Lopez time and time again-to let it render us speechless.
Perceptions of the natural world have fluctuated throughout humanity’s short time on this earth, going in and out of style as societies and technologies have grown and died. As is the the very nature of literature itself, literature and its authors have managed to capture these shifting views, expressed and illustrated by the art of written word. Naturally, the literature chosen for us to read based on this fluid theme of nature encompasses an array of perspectives. One of these views is that nature is sublime and above all else, a reflection of all that which is perfection. Another is that nature is cold, uncaring, and indifferent to the vanities of humanity.
Throughout the Romanticism period, human’s connection with nature was explored as writers strove to find the benefits that humans receive through such interactions. Without such relationships, these authors found that certain aspects of life were missing or completely different. For example, certain authors found death a very frightening idea, but through the incorporation of man’s relationship with the natural world, readers find the immense utility that nature can potentially provide. Whether it’d be as solace, in the case of death, or as a place where one can find oneself in their own truest form, nature will nevertheless be a place where they themselves were derived from. Nature is where all humans originated,
To perceive, to understand of nature and its interconnections, in contemporary symbolic thinking, is impossible. Denying our illusions, or our experiences, results in the rejection society’s interpretations, ultimately denouncing our symbolic thinking. We define reality as interconnections between nature, using abstractions based on perceptions to explain “natural processes, rather than structure” as “probability patterns [represent] movement in human perception” (Capra). Abstractions, however, become susceptible to our biased perspectives, to our experiences, illusions and hallucinations. According to Capra, to understand the “cosmetic dance of destruction and creation,” to recognize relations as the essence of life, or as “self-organization, self-renewing, self-maintaining, we need a more comprehensive scientific framework that “incorporates ecological thinking, [rather] than contingent thinking” (Capra). Our biased perceptions of reality contradicts our scientific frameworks, our symbolic thinking, creating a flawed perception that constitutes an illusion of ecological supremacy, representing society’s disconnect with nature. Because our debilitating disorientation, our illusionary thinking and our perception, frames the foundations and dimensions of our interpretations of reality,
It is interesting to think that society today can justify or criticize its action with a piece of literature or movie. Today, humans can be blamed for the maltreatment toward nature, as well as all the issues that have resulted from it. These issues, as a result of treating nature as an object that continuously yields necessities for humans, like water, only causes us to approach nature as a symbol of necessity, rather than an entity whom provides the population of the Earth with stable nutrition and habitat for survival. From this, it can be determined that popular culture reflects human treatment and view of nature, mirroring the scarring of nature by human interaction and degradation of nature.
In The Diversity of Life, Edward O. Wilson reflects on how the living world became diverse and how humans are destroying that diversity. In the book’s preface, Wilson defines biodiversity as “the totality of inherited variation in all organisms in a selected area” (Wilson ix). He adds that modern technology will allow for us to find many new species that were previously unknown to be in existence.
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
It is imperative to recognize our impact on our surroundings and their impact on us. Wirzba says “…these bodies, in turn, necessarily live through the bodies of others- wheat, rice, steer, fish, microorganisms, bees, chickens. We simply cannot avoid or override the ecological truth…” (Wirzba 86). Our lives depend on the resources around us. In order to flourish, we must take care of them, or we are not living ethically. When we take into consideration the needs of our surroundings, we are considering what we need ourselves because of our direct connection.
Both “The Clan of One-Breasted Women” and “An Entrance to the Woods,” gives a viewpoint on the human relationship with nature. Terry Tempest Williams critizes man for being ruthless when it comes to nature and other humans. Wendell Berry believes similarly the same thing. He believes that man needs nature just as much as they need civilization. However, regardless of the differences, both writers offer an insightful perspective on the forever changing relationship between man and nature. And this relationship is, and always will be, changing.
By definition, symbiosis is the close and often long term interaction between two or more different species. The word symbiosis is derived from the Greek words, sym (together) and bio (life). German biologist Anton de Bary is the scientist typically credited with coining the term in the middle of the nineteenth century, though also an important contribution was made by his contemporary, Albert Bernhard Frank. Frank, however, instead used the term symbiotism. De Bary introduced the term to discuss lichens, which he discovered were parts of algae and fungi. On the contrary, Frank reported on the association between fungi and roots of forest trees, which he named mykorrhiza. Mycorrhiza is also a Greek word combined from the two words meaning fungus and roots. The association in mycorrhiza is a significant component of soil life and soil chemistry, and the plant roots characterized by it are from vascular plants.
To understand the nature-society relationship means that humans must also understand the benefits as well as problems that arise within the formation of this relationship. Nature as an essence and natural limits are just two of the ways in which this relationship can be broken down in order to further get an understanding of the ways nature and society both shape one another. These concepts provide useful approaches in defining what nature is and how individuals perceive and treat
Scientists have begun to say that we have to do more to protect our ecosystem, because our very existence is depending upon it. When the ecosystem is not functioning properly the continuation of plant, animal and human life ecosystems would be impossible. Life cycles can not function without ecosystems. The ecosystem provides us with clean air, water, habitats for fish and other services. They also aid in the mod...
Nowadays it is common to read articles in newspapers and magazines regarding biodiversity issues. Human beings have been knowingly and unknowingly destroying biodiversity since their existence. Biodiversity is the measure of the variety of species of animals living in an area. Forests are usually areas with high biodiversity while deserts are the opposite. Human beings have always destroyed biodiversity either by deforestation, or by some other means. Biodiversity depletion is a natural phenomenon. But the present levels of biodiversity depletion are many times higher than the natural rate. Recently the levels of loss in biodiversity have started causing global concern. Some of the main causes for loss in biodiversity are alteration of habitats, increasing levels of pollution and human population growth.