I don't know... why are we then held breathless upon seeing natural terrains (mountains, dessert, rainforest) and similarly why are we completely fascinated by the animal kingdom, an/or flora? Humans are fascinating, but I don't think they are more so than nature. I've encountered humans more than wild animals, but I will remember all of my encounters with wild animals, and only a few of my encounters with humans.

But Ayn Rand would disagree.

I agree with Kellee. You've been in LA too long. This is straight from the human determinist/humanist playbook. True, for my situation, I perceive the actions of humans more than anything else (day to day). but this is mainly because of 2 things: a) I'm a human. All species tend to recognize the actions of their own kind, more than other external forces- take dogs or ants, for instance - they are more concerned with other dogs and other ants than they are with humans (for the most part). And here's the other point: to say that humans 'are' the environment is to never have been outside an urban area, to never have experienced how the natural landscape, in the end, will always win out. My advice: go to Montana, or most any place in Canada or Alaska, and then attempt to make this argument. It can't hold up. To be sure, we've made a mess of things, and now our peaks and valleys, so to speak, are mostly littered with human junk. But in the overall scheme of things, humans are most likely just as ephemeral as any other species, wheras the natural landscape will be around for awhile, and can easily regrow itself given time. Overall, a nice thought exercise on a friday morning, but just the type of humanist arguement I tend to cringe at.

None of this shit matters.

Well I think you're both right--it depends on where you live. I still haven't gotten over how thoroughly paved Los Angeles is--it's the most urban, paved over place I've ever lived. San Diego, while a large city, it broken up by many natural preserves & waterways. LA, on the other hand, is landscaping (as Kurt defines it) to the extreme--I almost want to buy up large plots of the city and convert them back to parkland (of course, then they'd probably become havens for drug dealers, but that's another issue...)

Well anyway, I wouldn't go so far to say that people are the environment, but it may be fair to say that people are OUR environment. And I do think we have a scary amount of power to affect the natural environment--the city-planet of Coruscant from Star Wars may not be all that far-fetched. But then, that's tricky, because without constant maintenance by humans, nature will re-assert itself, as Will points out. I dunno...

Thanks for the feedback. I must admit that I was surprised by the responses. When I explore a conceptual sketch, my goal is to challenge my own assumptions/values. I had forgotten that there are readers participating with their own set of assumptions/values as well.

I can see how extreme the perspective that I proposed might seem. What's interesting to me is that the responses engaged mostly with the claim of "the people are the environment" rather than the initial thought that sparked it for me which was the "we are the most power force for radical change." It was the experience of looking out the window and grokking the physical presence of human artifacts imposed upon the space that led my mind to wonder about two hypothetical states, a world that never had humans and this world after humans are gone, leaving behind only relics. I can't have nostalgia for something that I never happened, yet I feel a sense of longing for some time in which the power that we exerted over this planet was far weaker.

Without sounding too defensive, I feel the need to say that I am shocked at the unnecessary assumptions in Will's comment. Just so we're clear, I'm not offended. But let's be clear that when I am musing or meandering on an abstract idea, the tone and style are both loose and exploratory. The rather aggressive assertion that I have "been in LA too long" or that I have never been to remote and unpopulated areas is clearly unfair and unsupported by any actual fact known by Will about my past and present experience. As for the content of my thoughts, none of them are derived from the "human determinist/humanist playbook" and any similarity that one may see is both entirely coincidental and generated by connective links added by the reader. I'm sorry for any unfortunate cringing that may have occurred. As a peace offering let me assure everyone that I share their emotional investment in our relationship with the environment and I believe that this has been an enlightening dialogue so far. I look forward to continuing both here and within the actual space that we all inhabit.

oh, come on :-)

I was just playing with you...indeed, I do know your past, and the actual facts of the assertions at hand. If your tone in these musings is loose and exploratory, then mine is full of me winking as I write. I love when you post stuff like this, as it engages me. It just happens that I tend to respectfully disagree with you much of the time (here again, another wink). I apologize if my tone was too aggressive. perhaps I need to work on that. maybe it was just that I liked the sound of 'humanist playbook."