Human--environment interaction

the author notes that scientific research now shows that humans are pervasive in earth ecosystems, and have been so for many thousands of years, so that it may seem strange to argue against a concept that is now empirically incontrovertible. It is suggested that, as human influence on the Earth and its processes increases, we face the profound paradox that most of our intellectual weapons in the environmental area -- from prehistoric fire debates to projections of climate change -- have maintained a separation of humans and nature. However the author points out that this is an argument based not on semantics but on false separations that are adversely affecting the quality of our research and practice, including the ways we attempt to integrate archaeology and palaeoecology; that, while `human impacts' may be applicable to a subset of human activities, it is neither conceptually nor empirically strong enough for the detailed networks of human and non-human others now evident. It is claimed that we need to articulate a broader concept of agency, both human and otherwise, and to develop explanations that focus on associations and relationships rather than separations and essentialisms