Human/Non-Human Animals

The definition between “human animals” and “non-human animals” in my opinion comes down to the ability to reason. Humans and animals are the same in almost every other way. Both humans and animals rely on our instincts to survive, we both have the capacity for love and relationships, and at our core both of our end goals in life are to carry on our genetic lineage. The key difference must be in a human’s ability to use logic and reason. Arts and sciences could never exist in an animal world. Humans have developed to the point where we are not constantly focused on survival and this is a result of our ability to reason.

Human/Non-Human Animals

In my opinion the characteristic that distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is their capacity for varying interactions, or intelligence, according to the world around that animal. An animal that can be attributed with different social personality traits is an animal that can be assigned with moral rights. When an animal can act socially for good or bad past its instincts of being territorial, or mating calls its has enough intelligence for moral agency.

Human/Non-Human Animals

The ability to reason and make educated decisions are the two main differences between human and non-human animals. Animals act more out of instinct than anything else; their main motivation being survival. While humans act instinctively at times, they are also driven by a moral code which often has an effect on the decisions being made. A human can take a situation and think about it in a variety of ways, such as morally, rationally, instinctively, etc., whereas an animal cannot. This would seem to be the most important difference between human and non-human animals, and one that has led us to the position we are in today.

Human/Non-Human Animals

Before and after reading the selected parts of The Animal Ethics Reader I still feel strongly that there is still no difference between human animals and non-human animals. To classify them into these two different categories is slightly absurd. All animals have a type of code and ethic they share amongst themselves, no matter how different each and every organism is. They all have something unique in their own psychological behavior towards each other and towards the outside of their species. I find it wrong from a scientific stand point for us to give animals feelings and emotions that we as humans have created and deemed them right or wrong. To designate something as human or non-human is looking down on creatures because they don't have the same constructs that we do. Its like saying we are non-ant like creatures because we don't blindly obey a supreme overlord making us inefficient selfish beings, incapable of sacrificing a few weaklings to better the colony. It just becomes an improper classification design to group animals together with similar traits as humans, instead of grouping animals based on their DNA structure or a more fundamentally supportive class system.

Human/Non-Human Animals

After reading the passages from "The Animal Ethics Reader" I have a rather clear idea of the difference between human animals and non-human animals. The main difference, as I see it, is that human animals have the ability to follow a moral code where as non-human animals simply have interests but no code to follow. Both humans and non-humans can have interests, but the interests held by non-humans are more primal and based upon their well being. Those interests that are held by humans include the aforementioned ones of non-humans but also include moral interests.

Human/Non-Human Animals

After reading those sections in the Animal ethics book, it seems that the major difference between humans and animals is the abiblity to make a decison based on if something is either right or wrong and the ability to feel happieness for a good action or remorse for a bad action which is referred to as the conscious. This distinction contributes to the seperation of the two, making humans more valueable than animals.

Human/Non-Human Animals

In my opinion (which is clearly what your looking for, not a groundbreaking philosophical astonishment) the relation between human and non-human animals is obviously a topic of controversy. Consciousness is key when evaluating each sides of the spectrum. As humans we're capable of doing good or bad because we have the sense of consciousness before and after our actions. Don't mind this loose explanation but as humans we understand what's good or bad and hey, if we proceed to do this good or bad, that's what makes it good or bad in the first place. Having a conscience grants us the mind power to reanalyze, reevaluate. and revitalize the action soon to be committed and its repercussions to follow. After the action is said and done we are then judged on a scale of morality from our peers and even within. Non-human animals lack this consciousness and therefore are unable to use reason in undergoing actions to be judged in a moral sense.

Human/Non-Human Animals

Non-human animals are more moral than human animals. Non-human animals focus on a simple life and kill only for the act of staying alive, which proves humans to be more evil. Also, critically thinking brains, extreme mobility, and advancing use of technology distinguishes human dominance in society against non-human animals. More dominance creates more worries and stress than non-human animals possess, which may be the leading cause of our evil acts. 

Human/Non-Human Animals

In my opinion there are numerous things to distinguish between humans from non-human animals. We share more things in common than differences such as hear, smell, taste, feel, and sight. However we do share some dissimilarities as well including one obvious difference and that is the fact humans are more likely to know the consequences of their actions. Non- human animals act more on instinct and do not think about the consequences because they do know whether it is right or wrong so therefore they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Another difference between the two is that animals are able to work together better than humans in groups however humans use a factor which animals do not possess and that is 'common sense'. I believe the reasons why humans have a more dominant role in society is because they have better moral and ethical choices than animals.

Human/Non-Human Animals

The intrinsic difference between human animals and non- human animals is the amount of value and power they possess within the confines of the human world. In terms of capital, animals are regarded as either a source of nutrition, labor, or companionship whereas humans are seen as thinking, feeling vessels of a soul. This decidedly human take on the subject creates a hierarchy between the two, with humans choosing to take precedence over animals.

Human/Non-Human Animals

I believe there is no one specific difference that separates human beings from animals. Instead, there is a series of multiple characteristics that distinguish the two organisms from each other. Some of the anatomical features of man are unlike that of any other species of animal. Such things include the way humans walk and the structure of the brain. Only humans walk in an erect position, and the brain is normally two to three times larger than most other animals. The other apparent substantial differences are found in logic, communication, and senses. Animals are not self-conscious, which means they are not aware of the birth or reason for their existence. Human beings are the only living things that portray a complex array of both written and verbal communication. Sure animals make different noises, but no other animal can comprehend human intellect. Finally, humans can experience a vast amount of emotions unlike any other animal. Ultimately, humans are different from animals in anatomical function and mental capacity.

Human/ Non-Human Animals

I believe that communication and brain development distinguishes human animals from non-human animals. The means of which human animals communicate distinguish them from non human animals because it is a more sophisticated form of communication. Non-human animals tend to communicate in a less complex manner such as using similar sounds or even body movements to send messages to others animals, while human animals have a complete system of alphabets that can be joined in multiple ways to have multiple meanings. For example, the male Anolis Lizard expands his throat sac in attempt to impress the female lizard that it wants to mate with. A male human that wants to have an intimate relationship with a female human communicates this to her using language. The means of communication that human animals and non-human animals use is a direct reflection of the difference in the level of brain development that each has. The sophisticated language that human animals use to communicate reflects the more sophisticated and complex level of brain function that human animals have. The less sophisticated and complex the communication of non-human animals reflects how less complex their brain function is.

Human/Non-Human Animals

Our world today is based on the fact that we as humans reign supreme over all other creatures. Distinguishing homo sapiens from these other types of animals relies on the fact that humans possess the ability to decide what they want to do in their lives. Animals do have the ability to act on their own, with some species, such as the dolphins, having extremely high intelligence. But when most animals are seen in movement, their actions are instinctive and they have no regards for their own future except in the case of surviving at that particular moment. Also, humans seperate actions into positive and negative, taking into account what consequences can and/or may occur, something that non-humans have no knowledge of. There is a thin line between the two species which has intellectual differences at it's center.

Human/Non Human Animals

In my opinion I think the differences between human and non human animals is logic and reasoning. Non human animals for the most part tend to just go off of instinct not really thinking through the consequences of their actions. They are similar in the sense that both adapt to their surroundings and have this sense of protection for others of their own kind. Both would protect their family in times of dangerous situations such as predators who may want to kill and eat them. Another similarity as that both human and non human animals are taught basic survival techniques and lessons when they are young and these skills stay with both groups for their entire lives in order to survive on a daily basis. I do think that human animals have more of a sense of morality than non human animals which in part is greatly due to where they live and interact.

Human/Non-human animals

I think what distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is the ability to reason, think critically and make advancements. We can invent many different things to enhance our society and make things easier for ourselves. We are also capable of preventing things from happening due to our reasoning and common sense. Animals act based on instinct which is survival. These are basic things such as protecting themselves, reproduction and consumption. Even though we also act on survival, there is deeper thought and reasoning used for these necessities. Our capabilities make human animals more distinct than non-human animals

Human/Non-Human Animals

Reason is what distinguishes non-human animals from human animals. Although human animals and non-human animals share basic instincts such as the ability to think, feel, store memory, and have interests, these instincts do no imply that these classes of animals are equal. Non-human animals rely on their primitive instincts to survive while human animals control their instincts. Human animals have traditions, social ethics, and advanced emotions that distinguish them from non-human animals. All of these characteristics of human animals stem from their greater ability to reason.

Human/Non-Human Animals

I believe that what separates human animals from non-human animals is our dominance. Theoretically, humans are at the top of the food chain and that should make the other animals fearful. We basically have taken over the world and have the power to exterminate all other life forms, even ourselves, if we choose to do so. Humans are dangerous because of the kind of dominance we have. As it seems, the complexity of our thought, along with the beauty of our existence, has made our climb to the top inevitable. This is not to say that animals do not feel or think like we do, but we do it better. In fact, I believe that we do everything better. Humans dominate the social and biological spectrum, and that is what separates us.

Human/Non-Human Animals

The world is comprised of many different beings living together in harmony with nature. Although all living things are indeed living there are distinct differences that set apart the human race from all other species on our earth. The most prominent of these differences is the ability to think critically and analyze information. Although animals have the ability to cooperate and communicate as humans do, they do not possess the ability to apply reflective judgement upon their actions. This ability allows the human race to not only evolve physically but to evolve mentally as well through reflection and the revision of mistakes. Many non-human animals continue to take part in dangerous or unethical behavior without ever stopping to think if their behavior may be a mistake. I believe this to be the reason why we still find numerous non-human animals dead on the side of the road after being hit by an automobile. If they had the ability to critically think they would have developed the ability to look both ways before crossing by now.

Human/Non-Human Animals

In my own opinion, I think there are plenty of things/issues that distinguish human animals from non-human animals. The first issue for me is the thought of survival. Non-human animals are either put in the wild or are born there. They specifically focus on survival of the fitest. They deal with predators and preys. They know who and what they can eat and not eat to survive. Non-human animals know how to survive in the wilderness. For instance, some animals know how to camouflauge themselves to protect themselves from their predators and also their prey. On the other side, human animals honestly could not survive in the wilderness for over a week. Studies and people have done so but do human animals really know how to survive more than a week in the wilderness? I do not believe so. If a human were in the wilderness and had no food or water and relied on the animals in the wilderness and the water in the wilderness, they would not survive all that much or eventually.

THE BEDSIDE BOOK OF BEASTS

A review of Graeme Gibson's The Bedside Book of Beasts: A Wildlife Miscellany from this Sunday's NYT Book Review:

December 6, 2009

Wild Things By JENNIFER B. McDONALD

Quick: How would you react were you to cross paths with a lion in the Kalahari? Would you run away? Play dead? Or would you be “too dazzled to do anything” and freeze, boggle-eyed, right on the spot? According to Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, whose work Graeme Gibson excerpts in THE BEDSIDE BOOK OF BEASTS: A Wildlife Miscellany (Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, $35), the appropriate reaction is to “walk purposefully away at an oblique angle without exciting the lion”; or, hope that the lion, too, would rather avoid a skirmish and will muster the decency to saunter off himself.

Such silent understanding between predator and prey belongs to an innate “wild self-sufficiency,” a quality, Gibson observes, that centuries of civilization have bred out of domesticated beasts — the human animal among them. This disconnect is a major motif of his nimbly curated bestiary. So is the idea that as much as we have divorced ourselves from the natural world, we cannot escape that we are of it. “We harbor a primordial animal memory in our being,” Gibson writes. “Its shadows dwell in our instincts, just as they stir in our dreams and fears.”

As he did four years ago in “The Bedside Book of Birds,” Gibson, the Canadian novelist (and longtime partner in birding and berry-picking to Margaret Atwood), has compiled poetry and myth, fairy tale and folklore, sacred texts and travelogues in an enchantingly illustrated volume that will awaken something primal in any human who dips into its pages. But this is far from a merely pretty survey of the animal kingdom. It is a book of raw spirit, a polemic against cold industrialization buttressed by Darwin, Forster, Murakami and Neruda, Audubon, Rubens and Leonardo, among many others.

The phrase “Book of Beasts” has a ring of fancy to it, and Gibson does include the fantastical, like Hesiod on “fierce Echidna,” half nymph and half snake, “eating raw flesh beneath the secret parts of the holy earth.” The Taittiriya Upanishad declares, “O wonderful! O wonderful! / I am food! I am food! I am food!” while Kafka spins a cat-and-mouse fable. But mostly we encounter the corporeal: there’s George Orwell felling an elephant (“His mouth was wide open — I could see far down into caverns of pale pink throat”) and Tolstoy in a close scrape with a bear (“I realized that he was drawing my whole face into his mouth”). Gibson himself recalls “the only time I thought I might conceivably be eaten,” by what may or may not have been a shark: “It was an unpleasant feeling.” Alongside these entries appears a pageant of art spanning cultures and centuries — paintings, drawings, woodcuts, tribal masks; foxes howling, panthers crouching, a lioness embracing a boy, even as she sinks her teeth into his pliant neck.

The scariest parts, though, come less from tales of sharp fangs and ferocious claws, and much more from the disquieting message, stalking the reader throughout, about a delicate balance disturbed. The dark presence of man is felt most keenly in the section “Killing Without Eating,” where Atwood writes of predators who slaughter recklessly, “angry old men / sneaking around in camouflage gear / pretending no one can see them.” These are not true hunters, she says. “They have none of the patience of hunters, / none of the remorse.”

Thankfully, Gibson favors awe over stuffy moralizing, leaving it to the muscular words and images of his miscellany to reveal human evolution as a beautiful and a terrible thing: it has given us the poetry gathered here, even as it threatens to make the subjects of this poetry familiar to future generations only as pictures in a book.

environment

Throughout the semester environment as been a steady subject. Touch on view point of how we veiw it as a socitey and individuals. We began by looking at the living environment of others. Looking at how it can change in a blank of in eye do to econmic downfall. The environment that you are apart of can make an major impact of your life by alter your life decsions. It is your surroundings that we learn that give way to your emotions.

Environment

Our environment has somewhat changed since the semester started in the summer. I remember the time when I used to come to class wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Around that time, the leaves on the trees were green, now the leaves are no more. Now, I have started to walk to class a bit more bundled up since the temperature outside has been getting lower. So it is safe to say that since the semester started, our environment that we're writing about has been going through its seasonal changes. Much like this last sentence, my perception of the environment has changed too. Werner Herzog's documentary, Grizzly Man has let me into the depths of the harsh realities of nature. I understand that the animals live in a tough environment. Grizzly Man helped me see that nature really is survival of the fittest, through the raw footage captured by Timothy Treadwell. Since the beginning of the semester my perception of the environment wasn't as sharp as it is now. I feel more educated and informed about topics on environment, and have enjoyed writing essays pertaining to it.

Final blog "grizzly man"

Throughout this semester I have learned many new things about nature. As a class and on my own i have read numorous txts about different topics such as nature coexisting with environment, and nature co existing with animals. The piece that had the biggest impact on me was Werner's documentary called "Grizzly Man". This movie was extremely interesting in many aspects. It was filmed by a man named Timothy treadwell, who if you asked me I think he might have been dropped on his head a few times as a baby. Timothy was an interesting man who had a great love and talent for interacting with grizzly bears. Over a 5 year period he shot hours upon hours of film of grizzlies in their natural habitats. To this day his shots are probably the most indept of all filming of grizzly bears. Timothy risks his life each day he spends their interacting with the animals. He adds " I love them with all my heart. I will protect them. I will die for them, but i will not die at their claws and paws. I will fight. I will be strong. I will be one of them"(1). The documentary grizzly man helped me realized the danger many endangered animals face. There should be more people like Treadwell in the world who in some way want to prevent their extinction.

Environment

After this semester, I have a generally more open opinion about the environment. Being such a large subject matter, the readings and film we have watched over the semester have helped to open my eyes up to many of the aspects of the environment that I was not aware of from before. After watching Grizzly Man, I now realize the emotional connection someone can have with the environment once they truly love it. Timothy Treadwell regarded nature on the same level as a worshiper of God would praise him. I have also realized that the environment can even be connected to things in our now more urbanized lifestyles. I made the connection between the wilderness and urban life after reading Gary Snyder’s “The Etiquette of Freedom.” The same way we regard urban environments, we tend to use to describe the wilderness. Although the environment is a vast subject that would require countless hours of research to fully understand, I feel that this semester has helped to make me unbiased about the subject.

Environment

One essay that I had fun writing and helped give me a different outlook would be my essay on Nature and how different environments can effect me. In my essay I stated that "Certain environments do affect our behavior and lead us to present ourselves differently in these environments."(Santana 1) I really enjoyed this essay because it really let me express myself on the paper exactly how I felt making it easier to write. It was easier because I was putting myself in the paper and not have to try to understand someone else's text, just making it overall easier for me to write. As for reading it and revising it, I felt that it was a really good paper and the more I revised and read it the more I got more anxious for the final draft and ready to have others read it. This is because I know I really understood the prompt, which allowed me to freely write easily and have it all come out to be an overall well written paper. As for how my view of environment has changed since I have been in this class can all be summed in one simple sentence. I believe that environment is best looked at through the eyes of the beholder because everyone sees things differently, and that is how I view it also.

Environment

Throughout this course, I have learned a lot about nature. I would say the “Grizzly Man” documentary was the most interesting to me. I learned how much of a connection people can have with nature. Specifically, I saw how much Timothy Treadwell wanted to be a part of nature and that amazed me. The documentary was definitely one of the most interesting and entertaining that I have ever watched. The film also inspired me to be able to write the paper that we were assigned- and it turned out to be one of my best. I had to explore Timothy Treadwell’s emotions while setting my opinions on what he did aside.

Environment

Throughout the semester, I have been asked to examine and breakdown many different essays that have extremely different opinions on what nature and the environment could mean. Many of them were convincing, but the essay that I related to the most would have to be "Coming Around The Bend" by Sarah Rabkin. Rabkin writes about how even in our own environments there are new things to discover daily, and that we can learn a lot from observing our own neighborhoods. She points out that parts of her personal surroundings differ and are new from day to day and give her a sense of curiosity. She continues to write about how everyday is an adventure in her own neighborhood because she has no idea what lay ahead of her or what she is going to see that day. She also discusses that most people only feel curious in their own neighborhood when something is drastically different, instead of exploring it daily. Rabkin opened my eyes to a new way of seeing something as common as my own neighborhood and turned it into my own daily safari.

Environment

During this semester i learned alot more about the environment than i ever thought i would learn. We covered multiple pieces of work that exemplified the environment. We even did an essay of the environments effect on the behavior of people. The topic for that essay says it all, the environment does have an effect on behavior and in “Coming Around The Bend” by Sarah Rabkin i learned alot in regards to the environment.Rabkin discusses that the domestication of land is our own fault. People believe that we have ruined land to make unnecessary things.Rabkin states, “We, wielders of combines and chainsaws, bulldozers, and backhoes, have indeed domesticated ourselves from our surroundings and now we are asking, with increasing urgency, what we have lost in the process.”(Rabkin 43) Rabkin is saying that by using all of this machinery we have hiden ourselves from the natural wonder of the environment and the pureness of life the way it once was. Rabkin is very old school and she is used to doing things the old fashion way and now she is seeing all of these new inventions and she is baffled cause of the fact that they are not necessary for survival and people were able to live without these inventions so why is it so difficult now. She also believes that all of these new buildings and cities have deprived people from acknowledging the true value of nature.

Enviroment

I really did not think that the term "nature" was so complicated to define. But after reading the essay "The Etiquette of Freedom" by Gary Snyder i started to question what i believed nature was. I would discuss the different views of many people throughout my essays but could not determine what i thought nature was. When i read this essay it started to make sense to me that everything is apart of nature but everything is not wild. He also talked on how people thought that just because things are considered wild that people see it as lacking something such as manner or domestication. I realized over time that everything wild has been looked at as negative by all but it really is not. At the end of the day it is still considered apart of nature and we should accept it. I used this essay in more than one essay because it revealed so much about nature and it helped me to break nature up in different categories and classify it.

Environment

Throughout the semester, we have talked about nature and how your surroundings affect your behavior. Over the course of this semester we have read many texts about nature but one text that we read that had challenged my view on environment was John Berger's article, "Why Look at Animals?". Before reading this article I use to think that zoos were benefiting the animals and that they were content where they were. After reading Berger's article, it opened a new outlook for me on zoos. Also, throughout the article Berger describes how there is marginalization of the animals. I learned that marginalization is to exclude or ignore, by relegating to the outer edge of a group or by diverting the public's attention to something else. According to John Berger, the space that the zoo has made for the animals to live in is artificial, and that in most cases the environment is just an illusion. Most of the environment does not necessarily meet the standards that the animal needs to live in to survive. Berger later on goes to say that the environment of the animals is made only for those who come visit the zoo. Reading all these different works from different authors, made me realize that there is no right or wrong definition of nature and that everyone has their own opinions. Berger helped to show me that sometimes things aren't as they seem and you must go deeper in order to figure it out.

Environment

I have always known that the environment each person is in has an effect on them, but throughtout this class I have learned how strong of an impact it truly has. African American writer, Langston Hughes seems to understand this feeling in his poem, "Theme for English B." In his writing, he is speaking to his Caucasian professor. He says, "You are white-yet a part of me, as I am a part of you." That's American Sometimes perhaps you don't want to be a part of me. Nor do I often want to be a part of you. But we are, that's true" (41). I love this quote because it shows that you might not always be able to chose your envirmonment or control how it affects you, but it is inevitable that your environment will have an impact on you. Writing our first essay was challenging to me because it was the most personal. I focused on urban environment and I was intrigued to analyze how it affected myself, as well as other authors. I enjoyed Langston's poem because I feel that analyzing and verbalizing one's self is one of the hardest tasks to do. In his paper while defining himself to his teacher, Hughes got to say things he might never been able to express on his own. I have learned a great deal from this class, but personally the texts on urban nature had the most impact on me and my outlook on environment.

On Environment

This semester has really made me put environment into perspective partially because the professor made it fun with his jokes and analogies , and partially because of the numerous sources we looked at as a class. One that stuck most was "Words of Chief of Seattle";the speech of the Native American leader of the Skokomish Indians who responded to the governments attempt at buying more of their land and putting the native people on reservations. Throughout history, there has always been the picture of injustice of taking Native American land from the American point of view. However, the Chief's words help to portray the other side of the story. He argues that you cannot "buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land"(98), and it does seems a strange thing because we don't own it. We abuse the trees by cutting them in excess, and never replant or restore them. We hunt the animals for sport and not need. We dump our waste and debris in the ocean, not realizing the danger it causes for the animals that inhabit it. Yet we have this mentality that the earth is ours to dominate and rule.

Chief Seattle counters that.The earth is sacred to his people , because as he says, "We are part of the earth and it is a part of us...So, when the Great Chief of Washington sends word that he wished to buy our land, he asks much of us"(98). If you look at it from his perspective, it is true that giving up one's home for the sake of greed just doesn't seem right. Those who take over will not appreciate it in the same way because their ways are different.

He also makes a valid point, though I don't necessarily agree with it:

"There is no quiet place in the white man's citites. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring...what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or arguments of the frogs around the pound at night?"(99). You can argue that you can hear the birds song in the early morning and the crickets symphony at night, but somehow, it isn't the same. That's why it is so important that we respect and connect with nature. It's important that we protect the environment because in the Chief's words "Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste" (99). If you look at the earth as it is, we are in danger of being suffocated. The air is being polluted, the glaciers melting, animals losing their homes. All of it effects because we are connected. The man hunts the beast, the man eats the beast, the man dies and becomes part of the earth, the beast eats of the earth. So why not treat the earth as it should be, as our mother, as our home, as a part of ourselves.

Environment Changes

Throughout this semester we have spent time talking about our environment and sharing it with the animals and creatures that live in it. I have taken a lot away from English 701/052 with analyzing and comparing the different aspects of my environment with that of the past. I must say that the environment that I am used to has changed over this semester. I am used to living in Cheltenham Township where it is quiet and you can hear the birds chirping in the morning and deer in the woods. I now live on campus in the heart of north Philadelphia where the closest thing to peace is hearing police sirens. My living environment has changed however I am use to it. I have lived in Philadelphia before and the sirens I hear every night was second nature. Although my environment has changed I believe I have done extremely well adapting to my surroundings.

Enviornment

In my own essay entitiled “The way I see you, see me”, I expanded my thoughts to correlate the way two authors viewed human animal relationships. As I was writing my essay I couldn’t help but think about all the looks I give my dog and the expressions that I try to read on her face. I couldn’t help but think about John Berger’s book About looking when he stated,
The eyes of an animal when they consider a man are attentive and wart. The same animal may well look at other species in the same way. He does not reserve a special look for man. But by no other species except man will the animal’s look be recognized as familiar. (5)
This statement meant a lot to me, because I recalled the looks that I would receive from my dog at home and think to myself oh I know she is happy because her tail is wagging and she has that wine in her voice, and that eager look on her face just waiting for someone to pet her.
This made me realize that I may or may not have had an effect on my dog as her characteristics are concerned. When comparing her personality to her environment one could state that yes she is hyper because her owner is hyper (me), but based on outside information on beagles, I already know that they are genuinely happy dogs. They get excited very easily and are every friendly to humans and other dogs.
Based on this discovery I can say I believe in some of the things Berger is suggesting, such as the fake environment that my pet is placed in. The suburban area with a routine everyday; wake up, go out, eat, go for a walk, sleep all day, go for a walk, eat, go out, sleep. This daily repetition must have some effects on her, she doesn’t see other dogs unless she is out on a walk, and she doesn’t get as much exercise as she needs. On the other hand I do not agree with him. Animals do have personalities and do not necessarily pick them up form their owners, it is quite possible that I made a clever choice in choosing a pet that is similar to me.

Enviroment

I think that the essay that caused me to think ciritically about the enviornment would have to be the second essay where i attacked the question "is urban nature an oymoron." For me this essay was the hardest to write. I compared a scholarly article with a poem and the transitions were not easy but I came to the conclusion that urban nature does exist because in cities, the manmade unnatural structures are doing their part to become more natural and energy efficient. I spent alot of time on this essay and I swear it produced the most brainpower ever but it was all worth it. I was interested in both of the things I was talking about and just had to find a link. I had never thought about cities being natural and found out alot about cities that I didn't know. I had no idea that Manhattan was "going green" because to me I thought nature was just green hills and sunny blue skies but this essay caused me to look at nature in a completely different and modern sense. Finalizing this essay was by far the hardest part. There was so much I wnated to say but I didn't know exactly how to put it together and I just did the best I could with the help of my peers and the writing center.

This class I must say was different. I never imagined spending a whole semester talking about nature but I must say it was worth it. The back to back papers honestly made me a stronger writer and I loved getting feedback from my classmates and the one on one time with the professor.

On Environment

I think that the essay that I wrote that changed my view of environment and nature the fourth essay, where we had to talk about the wilderness. I discussed about how both animals and people need to escape from their everyday life every once in a while. Which I think is true because if we don't then we will go crazy. The essay tries to reason why Timothy Treadwell, from Grizzly Man, had gone out to the Grizzly Maze every summer until his death. Writing this essay helped me realize the importance of a change in environment every so often, and take a break from work or anything stressful in their lives at the time. A part of this essay that really affected me was watching Grizzly Man, I thought that the story of Timothy Treadwell was interesting, sad, and a little misguided. Now I may not have agreed with everything Treadwell had done nor some of the choices he made, however I really enjoyed the footage of the bears and other animals that he had taken. It was incredible to see these wild animals in their natural habitat and so close to the camera.