Reading 4/20

I really enjoyed Ereshefsky's writing style. It was structured in a very clear way which made it understandable (unlike some of the other readings). It was an outlined collection of questions and answers, but it progressed in a fluid and relevant way. He included a lot of different quotes and ideas, but none of them were long or boring.

I agree with his main point that discussing what is natural and what is human is a waste of time when talking about preservation. The whole idea of labeling things as natural and human seems pretty pointless- we can't communicate with other species, so we are just labeling ourselves to ourselves, and we can't even agree on a definition within our species. Whatever we do will be natural and human. We devise and study our own history- thinking about human culture has becomes part human culture. So discussion of this sort of seems like a distraction from being/doing. It is more important to think about what we can control/do something about. And this is the point Ereshefsky is trying to make (in this case about choosing what to preserve).