Where do you draw the line between “nautral” and “unnatural” with regards to human impacts on the enviroment?

We often talk about how humans are causing “unnatural” changes to the environment. Isn’t this just a more eco-friendly version of the fallacy that mankind is somehow fundamentally divorced from Nature? Nature made us; our species and its behaviors are products of evolution. Therefore, they are natural.

Beavers create ponds which destroy many species but create a new habitat which is vital for other species. They modify the habitat around them to suit their needs, albeit on a smaller scale than humans. The basic principle is the same. Why is the beaver’s activity widely considered natural whereas human activity is not?

Now, I know this question is huge, which is why I framed it subjectively. This is a question philosophers will argue over ad infinitum. But I’d love to know what some ideas the community here may have. I don’t expect an “answer” to this question, but I bet there’s a lot of interesting discussion to be had.

Have at it!



Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!