There is no natural world

[ic-racer]

There is no natural world

This would be true if humans were unnatural, or aliens.

 

[warden]

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.

That’s a sad conclusion, but I understand it.

Maybe go to Hawaii and see the lava flows, and the land being reborn, and photograph that.

 

[Pieter12]

This would be true if humans were unnatural, or aliens.

Well, Scientologists believe that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

This is right outside Las Vegas. Red Rock Canyon.
Amazing area to photograph. Does it make it any less natural because I went through with my camera?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157717671668191

 

[Don_ih]

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,

It's not logically inconsistent. It's the way humans view themselves in relation to the rest of existence. And of course altering the environment is not unique to humans - but talking and writing about it is.

As for my last sentence, it's a slightly joking reference to the fact that we, by nature, will die. Hardly nonsense.

 

[Arthurwg]

Mankind is part of nature.

 

[Kilgallb]

That’s a sad conclusion, but I understand it.

Maybe go to Hawaii and see the lava flows, and the land being reborn, and photograph that.

I have been to Hawaii, the point you make is very true, new land is being made.

Here is a photo I made, the land remade by the volcano. This is in Hawaii Volcanos National Park.. Thanks for the reminder. I was depressed by 20 days of smoke from wildfires in BC.

 

[fgorga]

It's not logically inconsistent. It's the way humans view themselves in relation to the rest of existence. And of course altering the environment is not unique to humans - but talking and writing about it is.

As for my last sentence, it's a slightly joking reference to the fact that we, by nature, will die. Hardly nonsense.

I disagree... it is a way, not the way that humans view themselves in relation to the rest of existence. The fact that some humans have this view does not change the fact that said view is not logical. Humans hold all sorts of illogical views this does not make those views true.

Exceptionalism, has time and time again, been shown to be false in every context where it has been rigorously examined. Only humans make and use tools... false. Only humans have language... false. Et cetera. These is no evidence that humans are exceptional... we are just one species among many.

 

[Vaughn]

Hawaii is pretty impressive, as is New Zealand. Shove some rock up above seal level and life will not take long to find it.

Objectionable human behavior has only been around for a wink and half a nod. Any and all impact by man will be gone in the rest of that nod and a couple of shakes, time-wise. The dinosaurs 'ruled' for 165 million years. A Brontosaurus (or whatever they are called now) never saw a T-Rex. It's been 65 million years since the last dinosaur. Homo sapiens might come close to a million years if you include the pre-Homo sapien ancesters, but I doubt we'll beat the dinos.

 

[warden]

Thanks for the reminder. I was depressed by 20 days of smoke from wildfires in BC.

I would be depressed too. Hang in there.

 

[mmerig]

"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!

Natural and unnatural is not binary. There is a little bit of mercury in lake trout in the NW Territories, then there's Chernobyl., and lots in between. We could pave the earth with Plutonium, but I think few people would call that natural, even if anyone lived to see it.

Many ecologists deal with the natural vs. unnatural gradient all the time, and it is very complicated and many have written about it. From a photographic/artistic perspective, I guess anything goes.

 

[beemermark]

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.

Go the the Dakota's and/or Nebraska. Plenty of spaces probably never seen by another human.

 

[Vaughn]

Go the the Dakota's and/or Nebraska. Plenty of spaces probably never seen by another human.

One would have to disregard tens of thousands of years of being inhabited prior to the arrival of Europeans to hold that true. Where every 'first step' by a white guy in North America is said to have been taken, most likely that spot has already been pissed on by many humans somewhere down the line of history and pre-history.

 

[grain elevator]

Natural and unnatural is not binary. There is a little bit of mercury in lake trout in the NW Territories, then there's Chernobyl., and lots in between. We could pave the earth with Plutonium, but I think few people would call that natural, even if anyone lived to see it.

Many ecologists deal with the natural vs. unnatural gradient all the time, and it is very complicated and many have written about it. From a photographic/artistic perspective, I guess anything goes.

Thank you for the voice of reason. That there is a real issue got lost in bickering about semantics. Yes, landscapes in more settled areas if the planet are largely human formed over long time and people tend to forget that. But in these and the last remaining areas with little obvious human impact such as the polar areas and the oceans, human impact has become very destructive very quickly.
Some may not be aware that beaches used to be stones and sand rather than plastic, large marine mammals were several orders orders of magnitude more plentiful, permafrost used to be just that rather than a compost pile, not to speak of pole caps and glaciers and the Amazon. This is qualitatively very different from the slow and mostly local impact man has had on nature (yes, nature - why give up a perfectly useable concept just because it's fuzzy edged?) for most of the previous millennia, with perhaps the exception of some mass extinction events due to overhunting.
As to the original statement, equating landscape with nature is a false premise. One could discuss the usefulness of genres per se, but if one wants to use them, there's no reason to drop the "landscape" label, it has always encompassed man-made landscapes as someone has already noted, and although the border with cityscape is of course a little arbitrary and fuzzy, as a label it has its purpose.

 

[Don_ih]

we are just one species among many

We are one species among many. We have our activities. They take place in the natural world - everything we do impacts the natural world (uses parts of it, destroys parts of it, struggles against parts of it) which in turn impacts us. This is a way to discuss the totality of human activity. You could use the same framework to discuss the totality of all beaver activity, if you wanted to talk about those as opposed to everything else (i.e., nature).

Anyway, what are you proposing? that distinctions be given up? It's not "logical" to separate humanity from nature? The words are not synonymous. Logic proceeds from definitions, which are agreed upon, not necessary or determined. Logic dictates nothing on its own. Descriptions and definitions, including distinctions and grouping, are prior to logical manipulation.

So, if someone's yelling "Stop pissing in the river!", you'll respond "The river and the piss are already the same thing, for I am one with nature."

 

[removed account4]

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.

there's good and bad in everything. humans have done some interesting things. new brutalist architecture was invented in Sumerian and the Mayans invented television and the internet hundreds of years ago, its just modern humans that have screwed things up pretty much beyond repair because of their hubris. After everything shakes out, life will go on in one way or another. Modern humans haven't figured out if you fly too close to the sun the wax melts.

 

[grain elevator]

there's good and bad in everything. humans have done some interesting things. new brutalist architecture was invented in Sumerian and the Mayans invented television and the internet hundreds of years ago, its just modern humans that have screwed things up pretty much beyond repair because of their hubris. After everything shakes out, life will go on in one way or another. Modern humans haven't figured out if you fly too close to the sun the wax melts.

Daniken much?

 

[removed account4]

Daniken much?

nah .. just a realist. If we weren't overflowing with hubris, and listened to the universe we'd have a clue...

 

[Wallendo]

People tend to use "natural" to mean beautiful and wholesome.
Yersinia Pestis (the plague) is natural.
The naturally occurring virus, smallpox, wiped out up to 95% of some American Indian populations.
Malaria is also natural: "In 2019, there were an estimated 229 million cases of malaria worldwide. The estimated number of malaria deaths stood at 409 000 in 2019. Children aged under 5 years are the most vulnerable group affected by malaria; in 2019, they accounted for 67% (274 000) of all malaria deaths worldwide" https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria
Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis are all "natural".
Vultures eating a carcass are as much a natural occurrence as a mountain range in an Ansel Adams photograph.

 

[Robert Maxey]

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.

Let me ask ... aren't humans a natural outcome of other natural processes? And don't humans all have a fairly predictable way of going about things? Beavers build dams because it is natural. Humans build dams and it is not. Well, at least according to some folks. Isn't our world shaped by humans that are simply doing what they are hardwired to do?

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

People tend to use "natural" to mean beautiful and wholesome.
Yersinia Pestis (the plague) is natural...

This is part of the problem, is it not? We step in and try to change what is truly natural to something we only think is (or should be) natural. Like the cabin in the woods built so it looks natural. Natural is no cabin in the woods.

AND ... for the record: if you want to build a cabin in the woods, go for it. I stopped hugging nature long ago. I just want a nice cabin in the woods.

Nature can be brutal because it is just what nature does.

Bob

 

[fdonadio]

More to the point, there are still landscapes to be found where the influence of humans is so light as to be undetectable...

One thing that bothers me is when theres’s a pole right in the middle of an otherwise stunning landscape . It happens hear a lot, especially because we don’t bury our electric lines; as opposed to most of the USA or Europe, here they are “aerial”.

I even thought about including them in my compositions as a kind of protest, but sometimes they are way too distracting, to the point of making the other parts of the composition to fade away.

 

[removed account4]

I don’t think hubris is the big problem.

As for the universe, it doesn’t care about anything. Also this planet has a finite existence.

I'd be careful, cowboy, words like that you might have to watch out for lightening bolts !

 

[Robert Maxey]

One thing that bothers me is when theres’s a pole right in the middle of an otherwise stunning landscape . It happens hear a lot, especially because we don’t bury our electric lines; as opposed to most of the USA or Europe, here they are “aerial”.

I even thought about including them in my compositions as a kind of protest, but sometimes they are way too distracting, to the point of making the other parts of the composition to fade away.

I just looked and you can purchase a Saguro Cactus costume. Carry a few different sizes and decorate the pole.

Bob

 

[Sirius Glass]

The OP needs to get out more and move out of his surroundings.