Disconnection in Nature

As discussed in class we learned that there is a definite disconnection with the view that people today have about the link between man, civilization, wilderness, and nature. We saw that in the analysis of our class data involving pictures of nature that we are almost always separating these concepts although they are so similar. We link the ideas of the wild and nature and cast them as opposites of man and civilization. It is often times this separation that can cause so much quarreling and catastrophe.

The prospect that nature can be synonomous with civilization is not a foreign idea. Many naturalists have contemplated whether or not we could merge the two somehow. Is it really true that one can have one, but not the other? Man separates himself from nature by removing it from his domain. We see concrete instead of soil in our cities and hear the neverending pleas of conservationists to help restore what was destroyed by our influence. People have made the arguement that we have replaced nuture with our own subsitute (lawns, parks, trees along streets), but these are artificial replacements which are merely a memorial to what was once wild and created by verdant forces.

Personally I have a certain amount of sympathy for Earth's nature, however it is natural for the next species to take control and reclaim what was there before it. The degradation of Earth's nature and entropy that is present is natural itself. Perhaps it is possible to merge the wild traits of Earth's nature and the wild traits of man's nature into some harmony. As touched upon by Mr. Sullivan in Hunting Frogs on Elston, we have tried to do this by living side by side with islands of remaining nature, but this less than satisfactory to appease what nature needs and what we would like. Is there a practical answer to this dilemma?