After reading Alfred Crosby\u2019s Ecological Imperialism<\/i> 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.\u00a0 I am specifically struggling with the idea that Reed Noss suggests; Wilderness can manage land better than we can. \u00a0After reading Noss’s argument I basically accepted it without much though. \u00a0Nature, if given true-self determination always seems to find a way to persist and thrive. \u00a0When looking at the effect of Human’s on nature it is difficult to think of a completely positive one. \u00a0However, Crosby shows that in many ways, \u201cNature\u201d acts as imperialists just like humans.\u00a0 He cites McNeill\u2019s law and the importance of microbial diseases as \u201cinvaders\u201d and \u201cconquerors.\u201d\u00a0 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.\u00a0 By personifying these organisms, Crosby is bridging the gap between humans and nature.\u00a0\u00a0 He may even be suggesting that perhaps humans are just another actor in nature.\u00a0 Obviously we have an effect on the world around us, but what if we are actually just another \u201cinvader\u201d or \u201cconqueror\u201d of what we perceive as Nature. McNeill\u2019s law and Crosby\u2019s nature suggests that humans are just another actor in the process of nature.\u00a0 Humans and our conception of \u201cnature\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
Crosby continues to challenge this idea with his discussion of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.\u00a0 Crosby contends that the \u201cfirst wave\u201d of Aboriginal people to Australia were instrumental in the eventual settling of it.\u00a0 He argues that the people killed off or otherwise displaced a number of species of megafauna that were native to the country.\u00a0 By killing these animals they created new ecological opportunities and places for new settlers to inhabit.\u00a0 Were these \u201cfirst wave\u201d aboriginals just one form of an inevitable organism that would have killed these animals or destroyed their environment?\u00a0 Did we just accomplish what \u201cnature\u201d itself would have done anyways? While there is obviously no way to know<\/p>\n
I would use this idea to respond to (iasolcz)\u2019s previous discussion on the spread of disease.\u00a0 He argues that the spread of disease is not only perceived as a negative occurrence.\u00a0 Sometimes disease can be beneficial to an invading party, particularly if the party is trying to take over or displace an indigenous population.\u00a0 By looking at disease in this way we can continue to reshape the way we perceive nature and our relationship with it.\u00a0 While humans do carry diseases and spread them, animal can do the same.\u00a0 Rats in particular were the initial cause of the bubonic plague.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After reading Alfred Crosby\u2019s 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.\u00a0 I am specifically struggling with the idea that Reed Noss suggests; Wilderness can manage land better than we can. \u00a0After reading Noss’s argument I … <\/p>\n