Unnatural Man?

I’ve just been pondering a philosophical matter. People keep referring to man as being outside, separate and apart, from the natural environment. And like my blog on the alternative energy myth, I want to throw this out there; I, again, have no public position to put forward here.

So often, we’re portrayed as the villains in the story of man versus nature. Yes, we tear down forests and pollute rivers. But so do volcanoes. Yes, we drive species to extinction. So did a meteor strike 65 million years ago. Yes, we affect climate. So did a couple of ice ages and subsequent warming events. The argument is that man can have an impact no other species has had previously in determining its fate and controlling its environment. But does that remove man as a natural species, no longer subjected to Darwinian rules?

Inasmuch as man can destroy, man can also create and protect. Zoos create artificial havens where endangered species can thrive and regenerate. Man as the hero, but also man as the villain (we’re killing off species for their tusks and wiping out habitats remember?). So why demonize man?

An essential Darwinian element missing in all the noise about man as the villain is the primary component put forward by Charles Darwin: evolution. Evolution takes time, but also requires pressures to bring about changes and adaptations. Species become extinct, with or without man’s role, and species evolve. The weakest die off, and the strong survive (though nothing’s really adapted its way to a completely bulletproof skin to fend off poachers, or a way to adapt so fast as to stay ahead of habitat destruction). But time presses on. Nature, in whatever form, will continue, regardless of whatever man throws at it.

So I wonder: does the unnatural man help or hurt nature? Is he a part of it at all? Does he even matter?