How Does the Physical Environment Affect Us? Essay Example

What constitutes good living? Throughout the years and the changing tides of time, humans have defined good living in relation to civilization, a distinct understanding on how development is embraced by the new generations that come along the way. Relatively, writers Annie Dillard and Anna Quindlen tried to capture the essence of adaptation and how it was able to create a distinct picture of how a good life is defined by the human society at present. Back then, even before the birth of modern human civilization was introduced, it could be understood how humans intended to live along with nature. It was evidently true as based from reports of human history how different civilizations intended to embrace development through adaptation. People where the ones who adjusted and not the other way around. However, as highly-intellectual as humans are, they have become too accustomed to the situations that they began to take charge on how their environments developed.

At present, the modern society has embraced a new sense of good living. More than nature, humans tend to value material wealth and possessions as more important and essential to their survival. Consistently, humans tend to develop their environments; as if acting that they are the ones in control. However, there will always be a part of humanity that would remain connected to nature. The insistent condition by which humans become directly connected to nature could be seen through their constant desire of being at peace; to run away from the hustles and bustles of the city while hoping to accomplish a more peaceful state of mind in the countryside.

In Quindlen’s (1990) articleentitled “Our Animal Rites”, she discusses the feeling of likely being in a foreign environment while aiming to feel secure amidst all the possible risks of being out in the country. She talks of how a bear [likely harmless but seemingly huge and scary in form] was able to teach her how humans intended to change the environment when they should actually be the ones adjusting to the situations around them. Nature in itself is harmless. When it comes to animal behaviors, these creatures only harm when they are attacked first; in a way, they act based on self-defense and for the sake of protecting their only known riches which is nature itself.

Humans on the other hand act as if they own the place although they are mere tenants of nature like that of the other creatures existing in it. Relatively, it could be understood that humans take the culture of taking charge, may it be an innate characteristic, it is assumed as the very attitude that resulted to the denudation of the different natural resources and environments around the globe today. Anne Dillard’s “In the Jungle” specifically points out an actual picture as to how humans become alienated from the natural beauty and system of nature because of such attitude of taking charge. Instead of being one with nature’s creatures, humans become separated from them; making them more vulnerable to thinking that when they are out in a jungle, they are in danger when actually, the animals feel the same manner when they see humans residing around them. Quindlen (1990) supports such an idea when she mentioned about how a supposedly undisturbed habitat for turtles becomes a haven for a small home for a human. A person specifically chooses a nice place to stay in, pays an amount of money to the supposed ‘owner’ in exchange for ownership rights, and sets up a house thus disturbing the natural condition of the environment. Such change specifically affects the living condition of the animals and other creatures living in the area. When such instance occurs, animals tend to act upon the situation thus displaying disturbing characters that humans usually find irritating. Within the onset of such condition of thinking, humans decide to deal with the matter through getting exterminators and make the original tenants of the natural habitats leave. In this case, ‘who is the animal?’

Humans are noted in both selections of writing as the ones who tend to take charge, the ones who aim to keep account of nature as their possession; when actually it is nature that owns them. Without nature, no one and nothing else could exist; the ecosystem and its natural operations specifically support life and how it develops, including that of the life of humans. Observably, the modern condition of living has changed such vision of the real life. People today view buildings and concrete homes to be their core sources of security. They see their fellow humans as invaders to their properties. They view animals living within their midst as pests or just an extra addition to their natural abode. Being in control, human adaptation to the environment has closely been related to how humans tend to direct elements existing around them to fit their needs and their demands for a ‘good life’. Once these elements do not fit perfectly into the picture, they change the environment, and have everything else adapt to the changes they make. If these creatures and elements do not fully adapt to their ways, they simply are removed and are considered disturbances to the essence of good living.

Through all the presentations, opinions and relative discussions noted herein, it could be understood that most often than not, humans consider their physical environment as part of the elemental factor that defines their being and their desires. A satisfying life becomes satisfying only if they conform to what the humans believe as something ‘good’ out of life. To support such idealisms, they tend to consider redeveloping natural operations around them. It is usually that the humans take charge of the environment rather than the other way around. Hence, the behavior of humans towards their environment continue to be defined by their desire to be satisfied with what exists around them and how such matters define what they think is sufficient enough to provide them a good life.