Humanized Landscapes

What comes to mind when one says the word forest? Probably dense canopies, creepers along trees, a floor bin laden with shrubs and leaves, and maybe some deer, snakes, insects or any other creatures, but no human within the landscape comes to mind. Similarly, when one says the word park, one imagines flower beds, manicured lawns, and maintained lakes with humans lying around. Surprisingly, both were brought into creation by humans.

Within this abstract, rather than assigning a strong role to chance and randomness, the ecosystem is believed to have been driven for millennia by human agency.

According to Darwin’s adaptation model, cultures adapt to the resources of their environment, with differing adaptations being to the main reason for cultural differences. Instead of fitting themselves onto ecological constraints, individuals and civilizations transform their surroundings into analytical phenomena/solutions. By doing this, it creates a physical record of intent.

This references the concept of Lebbeus Woods, “In order for something to be built, something must be destroyed”, as what is to be destroyed is based on the outcome of the solution. Understanding this is vital for ensuring success in subsequent stages of ecological progress. The scale of the implemented solution can create large impacts.

When agency has a semi-intense impact, in the context of semi-permanent settlements, semi-permanent farmlands, the solution becomes difficult to distinguish from the impact of non-human activities. Such a case represents the cumulative outcome of individual small-scale interventions

Answering the first few questions on how forests and parks were made by humans, 3000 years ago, a huge colony existed in the Amazonia region, cultivating fields and building structures. But due to an epidemic, the region was suddenly deserted, leading to the rapid growth of the now-protected Amazon rainforest. The majority of plants there, such as the Brazil nuts and a large chunk of the shrubs and fruit trees, are in fact a causality of semi-permanent cultures that existed there.

As humans, we have a tendency to place nature on a pedestal — pristine, untouched, and beautiful. However, humanity and the natural world are closely knit, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that nature (both the good and bad parts of it) would not be the way it was today if not for human existence and human intervention. Instead of going to extremes and trying to leave ecology untouched, which is almost impossible in today’s time, a more sustainable approach would be, as Woods proposed, to simply be more mindful of our actions, and take responsibility for the so-called ‘destruction’ we cause. We belong to the ecology and are as big a part of it as it is of us.

To truly understand human agency, rather than perceiving interventions as simply beneficial or harmful, it is important to have a holistic view of the intent, the action, and the context.