Mario Cedeño Response 4/19

In, “Where the Wild Things Are: Environmental Preservation and Human Nature” Marc Ereshefsky brings up interesting questions and issues regarding what divides humans from the rest of the natural world. Ereshefsky highlights the major arguments in the debate; one argument considers humans part of the unnatural world, highlighting human’s distinctive nature. The opposing view argues that humans are natural and highlights what is distinctive about humans. This debate brings up interesting issues such as what determines something to be natural or unnatural, and if that should be the determining factor in environmental preservation. Others issues are brought up such as should the distinguishing factor in determining natural from unnatural be human’s distinctive influence on the earth, or should the uniqueness of human culture be considered. Debates like these are good to be considered but these issues should not necessarily be the determining factor in environmental protection. Environmental protection should not be thought of in regards to issues like deciding what is unique about humans, or deciding what is natural. Ereshefsky argues that human uniqueness is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what is a candidate for preservation, and that deciding what to preserve does not depend on determining what parts of the world are natural. Instead of focusing on issues like these she suggests that we should focus on what parts of the environment we value and how we can preserve those parts in the best possible way.