3 ms·

I'm sure the fish would see them as an unnatural barrier and an annoyance, but I don't speak for the fish or think so much of their perspectives. Speaking pers

I'm sure the fish would see them as an unnatural barrier and an annoyance, but I don't speak for the fish or think so much of their perspectives. Speaking personally as a human, there are few other vertebrate animals on Earth that can remotely pose a serious threat to my freedom, provided I exercise common sense precautions. That's probably why I'm most concerned with the human modifications to the landscape. I am forced to heed them. I'm sure fish would see it differently, although they'd still encounter a lot fewer beaver dams than human obstructions. See my other comment about how I would feel differently if beavers built dams across highways and shot people crossing them. I might be less inclined to treat beavers as a harmless part of the natural landscape then. We can make the natural vs unnatural distinction because humans have at least a partial hegemony over all other species now. Not completely; clearly microbes and insects are still out of our control. If there were intelligent alien invaders that started building walls and bridges and cages, I'm sure we'd label those as "unnatural" and "artificial" too, whereas a beaver dam is a natural curiosity. If there were other rival intelligent species sharing the Earth and reshaping it to their own vision, they probably wouldn't fit into the nature category. It marks a power dynamic, and it's an important distinction. Artificial structures are backed by the power of laws and property rights and other enforcement rules. That gives them a power beyond their material strength. Ants and beavers reshape the earth too, but the only thing stopping you from paving them over are objections by other humans. The other ants would hardly even retaliate. Edit: I guess the core of my point is that if you want to include a pair of wire cutters in with your bug spray and bear whistle and other hiking gear, so that you can freely pass through chain-link fences, then maybe you will start to view those fences no differently than rocks and fallen logs, just another curious structure erected by another fascinating mammal. I, personally, would never feel so bold.

throwanem 7y ago
Well, it depends a lot on where you cut the fence. Around here, though, usually someone has taken care of that before I get there. That aside, I agree with everything you've just said. The only point where we differ, I think, is that of whether the word "nature" and its allies make a useful shorthand for any of these concepts. I think the points you've raised deserve more focused consideration than that. For example, I agree that it's far too easy and thus too common for people to forget that we do have a unique power over our environment, and to use that power in ways that do harm. I don't think that deserves to sneak past under so fuzzy and easily dismissible a term as "unnatural"; I think it deserves to be called out for exactly what it is. That's a lot harder to do when we make a habit of glossing over such considerations with a shorthand like "nature". That's undesirable because these are the considerations that inform every decision we make about how we exist and behave in our environment, on scales as large as that of climate change and as small as what we do with our backyards, when we have those. Or, for that matter, whether we have those. None of this stuff is as simple or as abstract as "nature" makes it seem, and that's why I argue that "nature" fails to serve a useful purpose.
- jbay808 7y ago
  Thanks for elaborating, I think I understand what you mean now! I was really confused when you said that beaver dams are just like fences, because to me they're not at all the same. It sounds like we actually have a very friendly disagreement. =) I think "nature" is our best way to express these important but nebulous concepts, but you think it hides those exact same concepts. We're probably both right -- it will depend what community we're in, and their understanding and interpretation of the word "nature".

throwanem 7y ago

Well, it depends a lot on where you cut the fence. Around here, though, usually someone has taken care of that before I get there. That aside, I agree with everything you've just said. The only point where we differ, I think, is that of whether the word "nature" and its allies make a useful shorthand for any of these concepts. I think the points you've raised deserve more focused consideration than that. For example, I agree that it's far too easy and thus too common for people to forget that we do have a unique power over our environment, and to use that power in ways that do harm. I don't think that deserves to sneak past under so fuzzy and easily dismissible a term as "unnatural"; I think it deserves to be called out for exactly what it is. That's a lot harder to do when we make a habit of glossing over such considerations with a shorthand like "nature". That's undesirable because these are the considerations that inform every decision we make about how we exist and behave in our environment, on scales as large as that of climate change and as small as what we do with our backyards, when we have those. Or, for that matter, whether we have those. None of this stuff is as simple or as abstract as "nature" makes it seem, and that's why I argue that "nature" fails to serve a useful purpose.

jbay808 7y ago
Thanks for elaborating, I think I understand what you mean now! I was really confused when you said that beaver dams are just like fences, because to me they're not at all the same. It sounds like we actually have a very friendly disagreement. =) I think "nature" is our best way to express these important but nebulous concepts, but you think it hides those exact same concepts. We're probably both right -- it will depend what community we're in, and their understanding and interpretation of the word "nature".