🚀 go-pugleaf

In <51jur9$jer@news.microsoft.com>, clausgi (Claus T. Giloi) writes:
>In article <frank-1509962023160001@virso.virtualsound.com>, frank@virtualsound.com says...
>>
>....
>>
>>P.S. What exactly is a "pure habitat"?  Aren't humans part of nature?
>
>
>No, humans are not part of nature. In common use, "Nature" is the relatively
>stable ecological system of the pre-industrial world. This pre-industrial
>environment is rapidly being consumed by humans, even as they extoll its
>virtues in art and literature. Unless blinded by their self interest, most
>people appreciate the tragedy of its destruction. Children have little
>problem appreciating this.
>
>Humans ARE part of the environment, but this environment has not reached
>any sort of equilibrium. Time will tell what a steady-state environment
>including human impact will look like, but indications are that it will be
>horribly degraded both functionally and aesthetically.
>
>Claus
>
>P.S. Don't think that there aren't cyclists who think MV is right.
>
>-- 
>The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views 
>and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
>


THINK, the Dinosaurs had a HUGE impact on their environment, they are also not
part of nature?  Nature isn't a meadow in Idaho.  SPACE is nature, falling meteors
are nature, and WE are nature.  The majority of us weren't born in test tubes and 
evolved due to NATURE.  Whatever effect we have on nature is irrelevant.