[quote author="Shay" date=1207984413]<blockquote>We are nature. We are as much a part of this world as deer, beavers, and lions. Whatever we produce is also a part of nature, as is a beaver dam or an ant hill or a beehive. Unless you believe in some form of higher being, like God, you cannot seperate what human beings do from what a gopher does, as we both evolved on this planet over eons. If you do believe in God, the Creator, then it?s highly egocentric to think of humans as interfering in God?s creation, as if we could undo it with mere toil. Human beings don?t thrive in areas higly populated with Kodiak bears; are they interfering with us? No.
</blockquote>
Nude, I own a Jeep that gets horrible gas mileage, but performs wonderful offroad. I take this Jeep out to "wilderness" areas and drive to my heart's content. I am the <em>last</em> person to lament about how humans are destroying the earth. I believe I have every right to enjoy the outdoors as much as any other living thing on this planet. Is it possible that I may encounter a rattle snake, a mountain lion, or die by a boulder falling on me in an earthquake? Absolutely. Is it possible that I may run over a lizard or some small woodland creature? Yep. But because I am a part of nature both are accepted risks by interaction between species on this planet.
I was merely stating that it <em>is</em> fascinating to see how flora and fauna thrive and revive without human interaction. Nothing more, nothing less.</blockquote>
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your choice of words imply that animals do not thrive or revive due to human interaction. Do they need us to survive? Obviously not. But the phrasing you use certainly carries a negative connotation.