Discussion responses

Name 2

Discussionresponses

Response1: Lesson 5 discussion, Chrostopher Ponicki

Ponickiclears some misconceptions that influence the opponents of theargument that human beings should be considered to be part of nature.I agree with most of the points that Ponicki uses to defend thisargument. For example, Ponicki presents a clear explanation on thekind of relationship that exists between human beings and othercomponents of nature. It is correct that human beings have tried toexclude themselves from nature on the grounds that they are able toexploit nature more than the rest of the components. Those who try touse this kind of argument to exclude human beings from the naturefail to understand human beings exploit the nature, not because theyare wiser, but because they totally depend on it to survive. Inaddition, I agree with Ponicki that human beings are able to exploitnature in a negative way. Exploiting nature in negative ways (such asdeforestation) can be considered as a departure from the role thathuman beings are expected to be playing in the “family of nature”,but it does not justify the exclusion of human beings from thesystem.

Response1: Lesson 5 discussion, Dian Geng

Theintroductory sentence is quite confusing on whether Geng supports thenotion that human beings are part of nature or not. However, I agreewith the rest of the paragraphs that give strong conviction thathumans should always be considered to be part of nature. The theoryof evolution gives a better illustration of how human beings arelinked to nature. This is because the theory holds that human beingsevolved from one status to another, similar to other components ofnature. Therefore, it is correct for Geng to suggest that humanbeings should be considered to be part of nature as long as othercomponents (such as plants) are classified as part of nature.However, I find it less convincing to hold that human beings shouldbe considered to be part of the nature on the grounds that theyconsume other components of nature. This point could only hold ifGeng was able to demonstrate that human beings depend entirely onthose components of nature, and their withdrawal could lead to theend of human life.