Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do humans fit into nature?

Options
  • 24-08-2014 1:28am
    #1
    Reillym
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭


    As a species in the 'wild' where do we fit in? Which continent/s? Is there a niche left open from when most humans left their hunter-gatherer ways of life behind them? I can't seem to find one. First place I thought of was the African Savannah but I can't see a gap there which hasn't already been filled. Also have humans ever fit in? Are/were we needed in any of nature's food chains? I know we can live in almost every ecosystem on the planet with the proper tools and skills but which one do we fit into without being an invasive species.

    This interests me because if we were to go back to how we as a species were designed by nature to live where would we go?

    I think that's most of my questions for now!

    Thanks in advance!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    "Do humans fit into nature?" Not sure what you are asking. Homo sapiens sapiens are a part of nature, and appear to have evolved and continue to evolve from nature. And as to fit, they seem to adapt rather well to the diversity that is nature across the planet.

    "Species in the wild?" Are you referring to early evolutionary origins, prehistoric, historic, or contemporary period? It really depends upon how you define "wild."


  • Options
    #3
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Termites in the African Savanna use ventilation systems in their mounds to keep a constant controlled temperature.
    Just like them, we shape our environment(using tools). in that way we are suited to any place we can make tools tosurvive, and still be a "natural" thing.
    The tool's don't make us unnatural.

    If you mean before we had tools, that puts us back to the apes I think.
    Even now there are chimanzees in the jungles of Africa running around with machetes to hunt. To be fair, they were armed by people.. But chimps have been seen teaching younger generations how to use tools as well.
    Even at the ape phase of our evolution, we probably had tools.
    If we evolved from apes, then I suppose the types of environments they naturally lived in, might be a solid bet for us too at that same stage.


  • Options
    #4
    Reillym
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭Reillym


    Black Swan wrote: »
    "Do humans fit into nature?" Not sure what you are asking. Homo sapiens sapiens are a part of nature, and appear to have evolved and continue to evolve from nature. And as to fit, they seem to adapt rather well to the diversity that is nature across the planet.

    "Species in the wild?" Are you referring to early evolutionary origins, prehistoric, historic, or contemporary period? It really depends upon how you define "wild."

    I'd probably define wild as an area undisturbed by modern human practices or something like that

    By species in the wild I was referring to where we fit in right now but also where we used to fit in, so maybe 30,000 to 200,000 years ago.

    Ok so lions fit into nature, their way of life doesn't negatively disturb the environment and is needed for the survival of many species and also helps species thrive (by killing the weak and diseased prey). Basically I was asking where do humans fit in like this, where we benefit the environment. Where would this be? how would we live?

    I don't think we continue to evolve from nature. I would say we're evolving from the world we created like cities and agricultural areas.

    I know we adapt well to nature but is the way in which we adapt to nature not destructive? Is there not a place and life that nature would have designed for us, so to speak, to live. There are many places humans can live but are these places humans are meant to live. Basically in a way I'm asking what region are humans native to. Like the jaguar is native to the amazon.


  • Options
    #5
    Reillym
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭Reillym


    Torakx wrote: »
    Termites in the African Savanna use ventilation systems in their mounds to keep a constant controlled temperature.
    Just like them, we shape our environment(using tools). in that way we are suited to any place we can make tools tosurvive, and still be a "natural" thing.
    The tool's don't make us unnatural.

    If you mean before we had tools, that puts us back to the apes I think.
    Even now there are chimanzees in the jungles of Africa running around with machetes to hunt. To be fair, they were armed by people.. But chimps have been seen teaching younger generations how to use tools as well.
    Even at the ape phase of our evolution, we probably had tools.
    If we evolved from apes, then I suppose the types of environments they naturally lived in, might be a solid bet for us too at that same stage.

    I wasn't trying to say tools were unnatural. I would say it was unnatural not to use tools! since we have opposable thumbs n all.

    I'm not trying to go as far back as our ape stage! just as the species we are today


  • Options
    #6
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    We're exceptionally agile when fit and in shape, very sharp eyesight, very nimble and fast across rough terrain, highly adaptable, can eat most things, if we can't we cook it!

    We're now able to use multiple resources that no other animal has ever tapped from energy in fossil fuels to splitting atoms to make electricity.

    We fit into nature so well and are so hugely successful that we might be our own downfall if we're not capable of managing it.

    Everything doesn't live in perfect harmony in nature there's constant resource grabbing by plants, animals and microorganisms. We're no different.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Reillym wrote: »
    I'd probably define wild as an area undisturbed by modern human practices or something like that

    By species in the wild I was referring to where we fit in right now but also where we used to fit in, so maybe 30,000 to 200,000 years ago.

    Ok so lions fit into nature, their way of life doesn't negatively disturb the environment and is needed for the survival of many species and also helps species thrive (by killing the weak and diseased prey). Basically I was asking where do humans fit in like this, where we benefit the environment. Where would this be? how would we live?

    I don't think we continue to evolve from nature. I would say we're evolving from the world we created like cities and agricultural areas.

    I know we adapt well to nature but is the way in which we adapt to nature not destructive? Is there not a place and life that nature would have designed for us, so to speak, to live. There are many places humans can live but are these places humans are meant to live. Basically in a way I'm asking what region are humans native to. Like the jaguar is native to the amazon.
    Ah sorry, I understand what you mean now.
    It seems to me that humans are suited to most land environments of a certain temperature and ecosystem. we adapt naturally using the environmrent. Inuit, American Indian, Jungle tribes in the amazon. They are all examples of humans existing and adding to the environment.
    In the same waythat a birds nest is adding to the environment. It has certain effects. Food for scavengers, security and food for small insects.
    We have many ways to benefit the environment, if we returned to our old and simple ways of living.
    Right now we do seem to have a strong influence on the environment. It doesn't look good...
    We could still have a strong influence and bring more to the environment though.


  • Options
    #8
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Reillym wrote: »
    I don't think we continue to evolve from nature.
    You may want to consider larger time frames. Like any species subject to its environment, homo sapiens will continue to adapt and evolve or become extinct. In geologic time, humans have had a relatively short existence on Earth. They are subject to the same major global climatic changes, shifts in tectonic plates, vulcanism, etc., that are part of the changing environment that affect all species. Maybe they will continue to evolve over millions of years into something we could not imagine today?
    Reillym wrote: »
    Basically in a way I'm asking what region are humans native to. Like the jaguar is native to the amazon.

    We could name other classifications of life that are widely spread across the globe today. What about Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Arthropoda, Class Insecta, and Order Blattodea (i.e., cockroach)? They have adapted and live in many of the very diverse environments that humans do across the Earth.

    Nature experiments with species (excuse the metaphor). Dromaeosauridae (i.e., common name raptors) were bird like predators that had adapted and evolved with the Earth's changing environment for millions of years during the Mesozoic Era, greatly exceeding the relatively short period of homo sapiens. Similar to humans raptors were widely distributed across the Earth. There have been theories suggesting that Dromaeosaurs may have evolved into our birds of today, but those theories continue to be challenged.


  • Options
    #9
    mrty
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭mrty


    Reillym wrote: »
    As a species in the 'wild' where do we fit in? Which continent/s? Is there a niche left open from when most humans left their hunter-gatherer ways of life behind them? I can't seem to find one. First place I thought of was the African Savannah but I can't see a gap there which hasn't already been filled. Also have humans ever fit in? Are/were we needed in any of nature's food chains? I know we can live in almost every ecosystem on the planet with the proper tools and skills but which one do we fit into without being an invasive species.

    This interests me because if we were to go back to how we as a species were designed by nature to live where would we go?

    I think that's most of my questions for now!

    Thanks in advance!

    Up until the early neolithic period we fitted in quite well. Then came the introduction of farming, permanent settlement, after that its been down hill.


  • Options
    #10
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I think you're making the error that nature is about balance. It's about survival of the fittest and finding the most innovative adaptations.

    Humans extreme ability to make tools means we can adapt without biologically evolving new body parts by using intelligence and an ability to manipulate the environment to a degree that no other species had.

    It's a major leap forward in evolutionary biology really when you think about it. Our brains became so evolved that we now understand and can manipulate almost everything, even genetics itself!

    Basically humans niche in nature is we're able to hack it!

    The error in the assumptions your making is that nature is about balance. The reality is it's about survival of the fittest. Even at a microbiological level there are viruses and bacteria constantly fighting with immune systems that would devower entire ecosystems if they got the right formula.

    Species just tend to reach stalemate situations where things balance for a while until someone fugues out an advantage and the status quo changes.

    The unusual thing with humans is that we're not only top of any food chain, we actually actively manage the food chains we use.


  • Options
    #11
    Reillym
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭Reillym


    Some of you seem to think most humans fit into nature quite well even at this very moment, with all our modern practices. You say it's not about balance but survival of the fittest. Humans you could say are surviving the best of any species with a massive population relative to other primates, but it's not working, species are going extinct at 1000x the normal rate and we're causing it. We depend on these species for our own survival, everything from food to natural water purifiers to medicine.

    If our 'successful' way of living continues it's likely we'll go extinct too. So when you say it's about survival of the fittest I agree with you but balance is so very important also.

    The fact we can 'manipulate almost everything, even genetics' might not be the fantastic thing you seem to think it is.

    I see your point black swan. I suppose it could be natural that humans spread across the globe like some other species, but then at what point did our actions become unnatural?

    When I said I don't think we continue to evolve from nature, I didn't mean we weren't evolving I just meant we're not evolving from the natural environment but instead most of us evolve from the environments we've created e.g cities. but I take your point that we're still subject to our environment but possibly only to major events like, as you said 'global climatic changes, shifts in tectonic plates, vulcanism'

    Thanks for all the replies too!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 14,546 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think you're making the error that nature is about balance. It's about survival of the fittest and finding the most innovative adaptations.

    I think the notion that we are the fittest and therefore will be the species that survive as a result is flawed. I think the original hunter gatherers may have been the fittest and survived as a result, but since the introduction of agriculture the concept of survival of the fittest went out the window. Where a section of the community have taken it on themselves to provide the food for the rest of the community and other sections dedicate their lives to providing other necessities like clothing or shelter, transport or communication, security, etc. Where, at this stage no one part of any community can look after the entirety of their own existence. In fact, while living in modern society any one person is not allowed full control over all aspects of their lives.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Humans extreme ability to make tools means we can adapt without biologically evolving new body parts by using intelligence and an ability to manipulate the environment to a degree that no other species had.

    Adopting and manufacturing isn't the same as evolving though. The human species is not evolving fast enough to ensure its survival. As a species we will have run out of space here before we have the ability to create new environments or travel to new environments.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    It's a major leap forward in evolutionary biology really when you think about it. Our brains became so evolved that we now understand and can manipulate almost everything, even genetics itself!

    Basically humans niche in nature is we're able to hack it!

    The error in the assumptions your making is that nature is about balance. The reality is it's about survival of the fittest. Even at a microbiological level there are viruses and bacteria constantly fighting with immune systems that would devower entire ecosystems if they got the right formula.

    I think the human species has more in common with a virus or bacterial outbreak than an evolving species.


  • Options
    #13
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    I think the notion that we are the fittest and therefore will be the species that survive as a result is flawed. I think the original hunter gatherers may have been the fittest and survived as a result, but since the introduction of agriculture the concept of survival of the fittest went out the window. Where a section of the community have taken it on themselves to provide the food for the rest of the community and other sections dedicate their lives to providing other necessities like clothing or shelter, transport or communication, security, etc. Where, at this stage no one part of any community can look after the entirety of their own existence. In fact, while living in modern society any one person is not allowed full control over all aspects of their lives.

    Adopting and manufacturing isn't the same as evolving though. The human species is not evolving fast enough to ensure its survival. As a species we will have run out of space here before we have the ability to create new environments or travel to new environments.

    I think the human species has more in common with a virus or bacterial outbreak than an evolving species.

    I think you're making a fundamental mistake in your argument. Humans are a completely social species and by far the most complex social species of mammals. We do everything as a complex society, not as individuals and there's very little evidence that we've ever operated as loan hunter-gatherers, that's quite a mythological concept. Even in primitive times we operated as communities, villages, tribes and societies.

    We are so interconnected as a species that we've developed language to communicate complex ideas and thoughts. Then put vast amounts of resources into developing technologies to make communication possible over vast distances.

    If you cut one of us off from the 'hive' it's actually so serious that it causes many of us to loose our minds and become completely unstable. So much so that solitary confinement is considered a form of torture.
    We're not actually capable of existing as individuals for extended periods of time at all. We generally cannot provide all of our own needs without the 'hive' any more than an individual bee can.

    The 'fittest' in biological or evolutionary terms is simply means the species with the best ability to survive.

    Whether you do that by changing your biology over multiple generations to adapt to a particular environment or you've come up with complex social systems that get around problems as humans have, pack hunters like wolves and dogs have, many species of birds, many species of insects (ants, bees, termites etc) have it doesn't really matter.

    All evolution cares is that the species reproduces.

    Every species you can think of will reproduce and reproduce and reproduce where there's no limiting factor. Nature just happens to usually hit a situation where one species tends to balance out another or, if it doesn't happen like that food scarcity will keep numbers at bay eventually.

    Every species is constantly outcompeting others.

    The problem for humanity is that we've become so incredibly successful at outcompeting other species that we literally have no predators other than viruses and bacteria that might wipe us out from time to time and we can even engineer our way out of those situations and have pretty powerful immune systems too.

    There aren't any rules to this game other than increasing your population.


  • Options
    #14
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    land_mammals.png

    http://xkcd.com/1338/ - Land Mammals


  • Options
    #15
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Reillym wrote: »
    Humans you could say are surviving the best of any species with a massive population relative to other primates, but it's not working, species are going extinct at 1000x the normal rate and we're causing it. We depend on these species for our own survival, everything from food to natural water purifiers to medicine.
    The one reliable thing you can predict about any species is that someday it will become extinct. I am uncertain what constitutes the "normal rate" of extinction in terms of geologic time. What is the "normal rate?"


  • Options
    #16
    Reillym
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭Reillym


    The normal rate of extinction is 1 extinction for every ten million species every year according to one article I read. I can't post the link because I'm a new user :P


  • Options
    #17
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Reillym wrote: »
    The normal rate of extinction is 1 extinction for every ten million species every year according to one article I read. I can't post the link because I'm a new user :P
    I found a rather straightforward article called "Calculating background extinction rates" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that was useful.


  • Options
    #18
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    different types of species have different lifespans say an average of six million years


    But we aren't at risk

    even if you wiped out 99.99% of all humans there'd still be nearly 700,000 left to survive in a world where there are plenty of resources and a distinct lack of threatening wild animals

    food and fuel might be problems, but there'd be plenty of shelter and weapons.


    unlike other species we can get energy and food from outside the local eco-system. we have the technology to make single cell protein from methane , we can even make methane if we really had to,

    can we keep 7 billion people alive ?
    doesn't matter , enough people would survive to keep us going.


  • Options
    #19
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Not sure if there's an optimum number for the survival of the human species on Earth. Technology does impact whatever that number may be, as does the demographic effects of advancing women's education, micro organisms, climate change, other geological events, and the historic proclivity of humans to make war rather than peace. Who knows?


  • Options
    #20
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Not sure if there's an optimum number for the survival of the human species on Earth. Technology does impact whatever that number may be, as does the demographic effects of advancing women's education, micro organisms, climate change, other geological events, and the historic proclivity of humans to make war rather than peace. Who knows?
    When fossil fuel was cheap ICI had a large tank that they used to grow as much protein as if you covered an area the size of Whales with soya.

    Humans now fix as much nitrogen as biosphere does.

    Photosynthesis only accounts for a tiny fraction of the energy from the sun. So if you ignore the costs humans are way more efficient at capturing that energy than plants. We could easily power our civilisation by covering the Sahara with solar panels and making fuel out of seawater.


  • Options
    #21
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Not sure if there's an optimum number for the survival of the human species on Earth. Technology does impact whatever that number may be, as does the demographic effects of advancing women's education, micro organisms, climate change, other geological events, and the historic proclivity of humans to make war rather than peace. Who knows?

    Optimum number for survival of the species? it's debatable to be honest, one only has to look at some isolated parts of the planet (islands for example) where local population is in the 100's let you have contuined human presence, despite lack of (1) "new blood" (2) limited gene pool/"inbreeding"

    It's probable that the entire human population underwent a bottleneck due to eruption of Mount Toba about 73,000 ± 4,000 years ago. There's some debate that the population was reduced to between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals, if this is the case then all 7billion of us now are descend from these 3-10,000 individuals.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement