I struggle with where the line is between wilderness and the developed world is. I certainly believe that nature includes the developed world. I think cities are just as natural as an ant hill or a beehive. They are just the place another social animal created. The level of sophistication does not make them unnatural. Setting humans apart from nature seems wrong.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments. I had already read the story you linked. I find the subject interesting, you write about things I have thought about but do not have any formal education on. Things that achidemics have created terms for and the assumptions regarding what those terms mean, I don't know, and it appears I disagree with. I think maybe it is this way because some discussions require a common set of understood terms even if they are to a degree flawed. Maybe this is why discovery of "life" some place besides Earth would be such a revolution as then wilderness and nature would need to be extended beyond Earth. I feel we need to already be there. Or, just can the whole wilderness and nature talk. We have a universe or even a multiverse that is natural and wild, wilderness and nature seem to be meaningless terms. We have a universe with galaxies that have solar systems that have planets and in this particular solar system we have a planet that has a life form that makes structures out of steel and concrete and generates electricity, etc. does not make this life form less wild or these structures less natural.

TEK