If you look up the word “environment” in wikipedia, you will notice that there is more than one definition. Environment is a concept that completely depends on perspective. Even when you break it down to “human environment” or “natural environment”, our planet is host to an unthinkable diversity in number and scale of human and natural environments.
Which leads me to touch on the debate that environmentalists have with themselves all the time: aren’t humans part of the natural environment? Once again, it depends on perspective.
In my discussions of environmental studies, I always attempt to define a scale or perspective. As well, I disclose my bias.
Generally, I beleive that we are a significant part of the environment at the planetary scale. Think of it this way: if outer-worldly beings came to the planet and considered living here, they would include the presence of humans in their decision (much like an ocean view, or potable water). Additionally, in more finite spaces where we are not present, I still consider potential human influence:
- one, for the fact that the current, unbounded atmosphereic conditions are much a result of humankind; and
- secondly, we have found little to stop us from travelling to the furthest extents of earthly elements (think Everest, ocean bottom, Antarctica).
In addition to my belief that people significantly shape environments on the planet, I have an ethical attachment to stewardship. As a naturally selected species, I cannot deny the privileges that affords. I intend to maintain that privilege for my children and generations into the future – that means sustaining environments that produce healthy food, water and leisure.
From my sphere to yours – here’s to Earth on a Platter
