There is no natural world

[Kilgallb]

I have concluded there is no natural world. The entire planet has been altered by humankind. Not one square inch is unaffected by our activities.

Therefore, a cityscape is a landscape. Landscape cannot be restricted to scenes of just the so called natural world, as the natural world no longer exists.

 

[gone]

Exactly. Although I still like mountains to be mountains, landscapes to be landscapes, and cityscapes to be cityscapes.

 

[janew]

I live in a place that remains to a large extent wild. And... it has been and remains the scene of resource extraction and just colonialism in general, with cutlines all over the place, abandoned mines and gas stations and you name it. But photography here is either largely HDR'ed glorified landscapes, or romanticized pictures of old cabins etc.

Bah. Time for some "new topographics"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Topographics

 

[Vaughn]

"natural world" has no meaning. There is no unnatural world...well, maybe Las Vegas.

Landscapes have included people and buildings and cities since someone started painting them...and photographing them.

If humans are natural, then everything we do is natural. Just ask Mr. Natural!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Lots of wilderness close to where I live.

You can boat and not see another boat for days and anchorages are normally empty. There's always parking at trailheads, there's no barbwire to stop you from wandering up whatever creek or mountain you want, and you most certainly don't have to apply to a park office to schedule, apply for, or join a lottery to go on a hike.

The ice sheet was 5,500' thick here, so mountains lower than that are rounded while taller mountains have jagged ridge lines and pointed tops. It's been warming here for a long time for all that ice to melt. Think of it like a ball rolling down the road. Humans have given it a bit of a kick, so have impacted the planet for sure, but there still is a Natural World.

I see it in the increasing numbers of Humpback Whales we see every fall. We sea kayaked for decades and only saw two Humpbacks in all that time in this area. We now have a diesel trawler and have seen 14 Humpbacks 1/2 hour from the marina. Hundreds have now been identified as returning every year to this part of the coast.

Our valley was clear cut really fast in the 1960's &1970's, and the Grizzly Bears faded away. Every year now, there are more and more of them as the new trees gets taller. Over the mountains, it's about as wild as it's ever been.

Sure we've had an impact, but given a chance, Nature will find a way.

 

[Bill Burk]

If I can pick up one or two pieces of litter and remove all traces of human activity, I will.

It’s almost as if everywhere is somebodies back yard. But I like the small landscapes, which can be found everywhere.

 

[guangong]

If., by natural world, a landscape (used as a geographical technical term, rather than an artistic one) untouched by humans simply never existed. The landscape of the Americas was not pristine before colonists made settlements. The American Indians, while living a Stone Age existence, practiced slash and burn agriculture, created well established routes of communication, built tombs for dead, etc. Their hunting methods, by today’s standards, was inefficient and wasteful. The primary reason for devastating forest fires is the belief that not removing fallen trees and branches is “natural”, forgetting that Indians foraged forest floor for raw materials and fuel.
I doubt if there is a single inch of land in Western Europe or China that has not been stepped on by man. As Vaughn pointed out, man is part of the natural world.
My only complaint with man made objects in landscape photography is beer cans!

 

[fgorga]

"natural world" has no meaning. There is no unnatural world...well, maybe Las Vegas.

Landscapes have included people and buildings and cities since someone started painting them...and photographing them.

If humans are natural, then everything we do is natural. Just ask Mr. Natural!

I essentially agree... especially about Las Vegas!!

As for the statement "If humans are natural...", I would say there is no "if" about it.

There is absolutely nothing exceptional about homo sapiens from a biological perspective and history has shown many times assumptions of exceptionalism on the part of humankind in general, or of any specific subset have been shown to be false over and over again.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

If., by natural world, a landscape (used as a geographical technical term, rather than an artistic one) untouched by humans simply never existed. The landscape of the Americas was not pristine before colonists made settlements. The American Indians, while living a Stone Age existence, practiced slash and burn agriculture, created well established routes of communication, built tombs for dead, etc. Their hunting methods, by today’s standards, was inefficient and wasteful. The primary reason for devastating forest fires is the belief that not removing fallen trees and branches is “natural”, forgetting that Indians foraged forest floor for raw materials and fuel.
I doubt if there is a single inch of land in Western Europe or China that has not been stepped on by man. As Vaughn pointed out, man is part of the natural world.
My only complaint with man made objects in landscape photography is beer cans!

Good point.

In the oral history of north coast BC's First Nation people, they say that when they were exploring new areas long ago when the land still had ice, when they found a river with salmon eggs, they would take some eggs to the next river in baskets of wet moss. Talk about having a positive impact on your environment!

 

[fgorga]

If., by natural world, a landscape (used as a geographical technical term, rather than an artistic one) untouched by humans simply never existed. The landscape of the Americas was not pristine before colonists made settlements. The American Indians, while living a Stone Age existence, practiced slash and burn agriculture, created well established routes of communication, built tombs for dead, etc. Their hunting methods, by today’s standards, was inefficient and wasteful. The primary reason for devastating forest fires is the belief that not removing fallen trees and branches is “natural”, forgetting that Indians foraged forest floor for raw materials and fuel.
I doubt if there is a single inch of land in Western Europe or China that has not been stepped on by man. As Vaughn pointed out, man is part of the natural world.
My only complaint with man made objects in landscape photography is beer cans!

Of course, landscapes untouched by humans existed... there were landscapes before humans evolved!!!

More to the point, there are still landscapes to be found where the influence of humans is so light as to be undetectable... one of those places, that I have personally experienced, is the Northwest Territories in Canada. These places are certianly the exception not the rule.

I do fully agree with you about beer cans!!!

 

[Vaughn]

I agree that there are places were the hand of man is difficult to see, but there is no place on earth, from the deepest ocean trench to the highest peak that is untouched by human activity.

 

[4season]

More to the point, there are still landscapes to be found where the influence of humans is so light as to be undetectable... one of those places, that I have personally experienced, is the Northwest Territories in Canada. These places are certianly the exception not the rule.

It's detectable:
https://globalnews.ca/news/5676026/sea-ice-northwest-territories-premier/

 

[Robert Maxey]

I live inside my head where very little of this modern world has encroached. If fact, I recently bought a vintage Sunbeam waffle iron and a set of vintage Libby glasses, so I am slowly going back in time. Now, if you will excuse me, I am off to Walmart to purchase a few rolls of 616 and 116 Verichrome Pan film. Perhaps a few rolls of Kodachrome.

Bob

 

[Don_ih]

Not to worry. Eventually, nature will erase every trace of human interference. Then there will be beautiful landscapes and no one to see them.

 

[Vaughn]

Not to worry. Eventually, nature will erase every trace of human interference. Then there will be beautiful landscapes and no one to see them.

No one? Let's not get too species-specific about who will 'see' the landscapes of the far future.

 

[Don_ih]

No one? Let's not get too species-specific about who will 'see' the landscapes of the far future.

Eventually, no one.

 

[fgorga]

Eventually, no one.

Too homocentric for me... eventually no human, I agree, but there will most likely organisms to see how things have evolved.

 

[fgorga]

It's detectable:
https://globalnews.ca/news/5676026/sea-ice-northwest-territories-premier/

Uggh... that is depressing. :-(

 

[Don_ih]

Too homocentric for me... eventually no human, I agree, but there will most likely organisms to see how things have evolved.

Eventually, evolved and went extinct.

 

[Pieter12]

And what would an unnatural word be? Supernatural? A meteor? Not caused by humans--but wait, where did these humans come from? Pretty much everything on Earth originated here. Are beaver dams unnatural? Why should the alteration of the landscape or construction of a new entity be unnatural? Bird nests? Are you referring to crop circles and other phenomena attributed to alien intervention?

 

[Don_ih]

The natural world is the world without human activity. Yes, humans are a naturally occurring thing in the world. But the majority of human activity is at least indirectly dedicated to abating nature. Nature, after all, is out to kill us.

 

[Pieter12]

Without human activity or presence?

 

[fgorga]

I agree that there are places were the hand of man is difficult to see, but there is no place on earth, from the deepest ocean trench to the highest peak that is untouched by human activity.

Yes, I guess that you are correct.

Your use of the phrase "the hand of man" reminds me of an anecdote that illustrates just how much subjectivity there is in all of this.

I usually avoid the corner of the world involved in camera club competitions, however every once in a while I get asked and agree to judge a competition... against my better judgement.

The last time (about a decade ago) I judged a nature competition where the usual rules require that the photos show no "hand of man" applied, I was asked to provide a short bit of general commentary after the judging. One of the photos was a very nice image of a moose in the New England woods that I scored fairly high. In my commentary, I said something to the effect of "that moose photo probably should have been disqualified because of the hand of man issue". This was met with some murmuring and perplexed looks from the audience. I continued, "After all, the environment shown in this photo is a secondary or tertiary forest that is completely due to the actions of man".

My point of course is that many things such as the "hand of man" are subjective and clearly depend on the knowledge of and bent of mind of the observer.

 

[fgorga]

The natural world is the world without human activity. Yes, humans are a naturally occurring thing in the world. But the majority of human activity is at least indirectly dedicated to abating nature. Nature, after all, is out to kill us.

This is logically inconsistent Humans are part of the natural world. Therefore their activity must also be part of the natural world.

Granted much human activity is directed towards altering ones environment. However, this is not unique to humans. Beavers, ants and birds, to name but a few other groups, also alter their environments.

As for your last sentence... In my view this is complete nonsense. But even if you buy this idea you have to define "us" as "all living organisms", because death is an attribute of all living organisms it is certainly not exclusive to humans,

 

[Pieter12]

From a photographer's standpoint, does it matter? On the other hand, if you can get there to photograph it, it is a little like Schroedinger's Cat.