Introduction
Through the development of self-consciousness and their abilities, humans began to separate themselves from the rest of the living species in nature. In this regard, the human capacity for survival has improved significantly. People defeat other species and subjugate them for various reasons. Among them may be the use of animals and fish as food, their adaptation in the household, and others. All these factors have led to the fact that humans began to put themselves above other forms of life on the planet. In their mind started, the separation from nature (nonhumans) began. However, the question arises, is such a split correct, and does it not have negative consequences for nonhumans and humans? Although many people are sure that they are separated from nature, this way of thinking has many negative consequences, some of which will be discussed in the essay.
Discussion
The first problem that is important to consider in the topic of separating people from nonhumans is their misunderstanding of the processes in nature due to the distancing from it. When a person positions himself as something above nature, he loses contact with it and the understanding of some essential processes that take place in it. One of these processes and phenomena is the socialization of each species in nature.
According to Tsing, “Now that we are beginning to imagine an anthropogenic Earth in which humans are everywhere, involved in shaping everything, we need to know what more-than-human socialities are being made, with or despite clearly formulated human intentions” (28). Using mushroom sociology as an example, the author discusses the importance of society in every species on the planet (Tsing 27). Due to separation, humans may not understand the features of nonhumans’ structure. Therefore, they will interfere with their societies, causing significant harm.
The second problem that arises from assuming the separation of humans from nonhuman nature is the lack of close contact with them. Nature is an essential component of life for humans and all life. Absence or lack of communication with it, including people, can lead to severe consequences and complicate life problems. As Tsing states, “Since we can’t speak directly to them, how do we know anything about the social lives of plants and fungi?” (31).
Moving away from nature, we stop communicating with it and studying it. Such actions can have a direct result in practical terms. For example, when humans do not observe nature, it will reduce their ability to make foresight regarding possible natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and others, due to the lack of information. By separating their consciousness from the nonhumans, people are not involved in the processes across the planet, which can be dangerous behavior.
However, some concepts do not posit the separation of humans from nonhumans. In the article, Fish pluralities: Human-animal relations and sites of engagement in Paulatuuq, Arctic Canada the author, Zoe Todd, describes the relationship between humans and animals as part of more significant and global maintenance of life on the planet. According to Todd, “Not only do fish ensure human survival as a plentiful food source, they do so because human-fish relationships represent a whole host of social, cultural, and legal-governance principles” (218). Therefore, it is vital to conclude from this concept that human is not individual living organisms that are above animals, plants, and nature in general, but that human beings are a component in the global relationship between living organisms on planet Earth.
As Todd states, “Humans and fish, together, share complex and nuanced political and social landscapes that shape life in the community” (218). Such relationships form an everyday living society and support the possibility of life for all organisms.
It is noteworthy that the author considers the fish as a full-fledged participant of relations in nature and does not compare humans to it. According to Todd, “Rather than treat fish as separate from humans or humans as separate from fish, fish are intimately woven into every aspect of community life” (225). This fact emphasizes that animals and plants stand on equal footing in nature and that humans should not separate themselves from other living species.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it might be vital to emphasize that although many people put themselves above nature and separate themselves from it, the concept by Zoe Todd described in the essay suggests that humans are part of the overall processes on the planet. Their interaction with other organisms, called nonhumans, is essential for both sides of the relationship. The essay addressed the negative aspects and problems of the separation of man from nature.
Using data from the book Anthropology and Nature, in chapter More-than-Human Sociality: A Call for Critical Description by Anna Tsing, the problems that arise with separating humans from nonhumans have been identified. Among them is the loss of connection with nature and interference in its processes. In the end, it should be noted that life on the planet is closely connected in its components. As an integral part of the overall processes, people should not separate from nature and nonhumans but maintain communication with them for harmony on the planet.
Works Cited
Todd, Zoe. “Fish pluralities: Human-animal relations and sites of engagement in Paulatuuq, Arctic Canada.” Études/Inuit/Studies, vol. 38, no. 1-2, 2014, pp. 217–238. Web.
Tsing, Anna. Anthropology and Nature. Routledge, 2013.