Quote:
Originally Posted by oats
I agree with what you're saying, but:
you're arguing connotation, I'm arguing definition. connotations are subjective, I'm talking in terms of universal acceptance.
It may be a "natural" inclination for humans to build and organize how we did, but that doesn't make the actual constructs natural. As opposed to ant colonies, which are built in conjunction with natural resources, our constructions are built on top of nature in a way that prevents coexistence. Therefore, they are not part of nature; they replaced it.
|
Which constructions? Buildings, yes, but most habitats of animals are exclusive.
There are entire ecosystems within cities and especially towns, deer live in our parks and our backyards. They do excavate and remove nature, initially, but nature eventually comes back and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with humans. Even in the densest of constructions such as Mexico DF, Tokyo, and NYC, animals and nature are not removed or gotten rid of
Ants have to venture forth from their colonies to retrieve resources, just as we do. Our resources are processed time and time again, but we are tethered to the earth at a basic level through fossil fuels, food, water, etc