Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
After reading Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism and considering his argument, I am beginning to question the ways we defined and the ways we look at nature during our last class meeting. I am specifically struggling with the idea that Reed Noss suggests; Wilderness can manage land better than we can. After reading Noss’s argument I basically accepted it without much though. Nature, if given true-self determination always seems to find a way to persist and thrive. When looking at the effect of Human’s on nature it is difficult to think of a completely positive one. However, Crosby shows that in many ways, “Nature” acts as imperialists just like humans. He cites McNeill’s law and the importance of microbial diseases as “invaders” and “conquerors.” Crosby elaborates, arguing that an invading organism can decimate an invaded region to the point that they render the old ecosystem vulnerable or actually take over the environment and inhabit it. By personifying these organisms, Crosby is bridging the gap between humans and nature. He may even be suggesting that perhaps humans are just another actor in nature. Obviously we have an effect on the world around us, but what if we are actually just another “invader” or “conqueror” of what we perceive as Nature. McNeill’s law and Crosby’s nature suggests that humans are just another actor in the process of nature. Humans and our conception of “nature” are effected by each other in the same way that a type of animal from one country can be infected by an invading disease form another.
Crosby continues to challenge this idea with his discussion of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Crosby contends that the “first wave” of Aboriginal people to Australia were instrumental in the eventual settling of it. He argues that the people killed off or otherwise displaced a number of species of megafauna that were native to the country. By killing these animals they created new ecological opportunities and places for new settlers to inhabit. Were these “first wave” aboriginals just one form of an inevitable organism that would have killed these animals or destroyed their environment? Did we just accomplish what “nature” itself would have done anyways? While there is obviously no way to know
I would use this idea to respond to (iasolcz)’s previous discussion on the spread of disease. He argues that the spread of disease is not only perceived as a negative occurrence. Sometimes disease can be beneficial to an invading party, particularly if the party is trying to take over or displace an indigenous population. By looking at disease in this way we can continue to reshape the way we perceive nature and our relationship with it. While humans do carry diseases and spread them, animal can do the same. Rats in particular were the initial cause of the bubonic plague. If we bridge the gap between humans and our conception of nature, we can argue that humans are just another actor in the spread of diseases and the destruction of populations.