“When humanity is considered a part of nature, cities themselves can be regarded as a global network of ecosystems” (294).
This one statement altered my perception on the way I have viewed biodiversity and ecosystems up until now. During our class discussions, we distinguish ourselves from nature, and perhaps in the process raise ourselves on a platform. We want to believe that we are the ones in control- and so we manipulate species and exploit everything we can get our hands on. When the Europeans came to North America, they felt extremely powerful after making such a discovery. This sense of empowerment directly led to nature’s demise.
On a more subtle level, ordinary people also view themselves superior to nature. While I am not arguing against that, this attitude makes us think, “We don’t need anyone’s (nature) help. We can do it all on our own,” when in reality we can’t. We need nature. As “organisms” we are a part of the (city) ecosystems and heavily dependent on its resources. Even the medicines that are made by scientists in laboratories are based off plants. Let’s not trick ourselves into believing otherwise.
Yet, the article mentions, “Society is prepared to pay large sums for lowered noise levels… (with) technical solutions” (297). We are proud of our scientists and engineers’ inventions, when all this time nature is right in front of our eyes, and the cheaper solution. But for some reason we prefer to take the credit and satisfaction of fixing problems we carelessly cause.
More so, it is a negative character trait to take advantage of the “weak” and defenseless. I touched on this in my past post, but the way we treat our environment is indicative of the people we are. The article understands humans’ selfish nature and informs us of ecosystem services, in hopes that we’ll protect the environment at least for our sake. One ecosystem service is that vegetation and trees reduce air pollution. The authors point out, however, that coniferous trees are also sensitive to air pollution. Its important to recognize that it is not just ourselves that we are destroying, but the world around us.
With all that being said, I appreciated the authors’ honesty in pointing out some negative aspects of nature. For example, they did not cover up that animals could cause disturbing noises or smells. Hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis also came to mind. I found out the ever since Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security considers hurricanes to be national security threats. Nature, however, can be dangerous even on the daily. The other day, I met a girl who went to a college in upstate New York. She mentioned that unlike in New York where people or cars are our biggest enemies, in her college she feared deer the most. The deer population eventually became so out of hand that the university called in men with bows and arrows to decrease the numbers. Once again, this response empowers us humans, the fact that we can just kill deer at will, and we are caught in a power struggle.
If cities are a “global network of ecosystems,” perhaps we should treat our environment or “neighboring ecosystems” as if they are a neighboring country. We depend on each other for resources and even enjoy each other’s presence. Sometimes the relationship turns ugly, but we only resort to war as a defensive tactic. While unfortunately this isn’t always the reality with other countries, it doesn’t mean we should stop trying with them, or with nature either.
