Make a respond to the following discussion, you only to write about 4-5 sentences. Please finish it ASAP.
Question: Sometime we go far away from cities and towns and find places that seem so far removed from human influence that they we call them untouched, virgin land, or pristine. Yet there is ample evidence that suggests that humans, even before European colonization, have been altering the landscape for a long time. In the absence of truly pristine land, do you think there is a way to draw a line between a natural setting and a human-influenced one? How do you make the distinction? Use some historical examples.
Discussion: Even in our attempts to protect areas of land and the wilderness within, such as with Yellowstone National Park, we alter and shape the land in ways that suit economic needs, whether extractive or cultural, by confining it and creating trails and alterations as buffers between the boundaries of nature and civilization. In doing so, Yellowstone was treated as such and resulted in the elimination of predatory species, altering the food web, unbalancing the system that took ages to define the relationships. This further reduced the park’s resilience to non-anthropogenic forces and further destabilized the ecosystem (Steingberg). I feel the only way we can find a “natural setting” is to look for areas with no civil influences and constructions. Areas without roads, fences, nor well defined paths I feel would draw the line. To me, a truly natural setting is one that is difficult for civilized people to traverse, let alone enter. They should be far removed from civil encroachment, since the wilderness near it is influence by it and that influence can spread far into adjacent natural settings. Perhaps unsettled islands or mountainous locals that are inhospitable to humans would best fit as being on other side of the line as an example of a natural setting opposite a human-influenced one.
