Dr. Tim McPhearson, a scholar of urban ecology and environmental studies, recently stated the following about what every ecologist should know about “urban ecology.” His statement was engaging in the larger argument that ecology should not only try to study that which is supposedly “pristine” and separate from human influence:
“Humans are part of ecosystems, and humans and other biophysical components of ecosystems are deeply intertwined, with reciprocal influence. There is not an ecosystem on earth that does not have human influence. It feels like going back to basics to argue this point, and yet if there is one thing all ecologists must realize, it is that to study ecology in the Anthropocene, on this urban planet, we must consider ecosystems now as not simply biophysical systems somehow operating in a closed box without human interaction.”
How might Cronon (1996) and Kareiva and Marvier (2012) respond to McPhearson’s statement? Be sure to summarize their key arguments in your response.
Do you agree or disagree with McPhearson, Cronon and Kareiva, and Marvier, and why? What do you see as being the benefits and/or potential risks to these kinds of perspectives?