Domesticity

On the subject of living artifacts, it really does make sense that a dog is an artifact of human civilization. They never would have come to exist without us, we breed them to be as useful as possible, and we have created more diversity through breeding in that gene pool than is seen in almost any other single animal on earth. An experiment was done in Siberia which really underscored how complex the process of breeding for domesticity is. The researchers were trying to create a domesticated fox that could be sold as a viable, safe pet. In order to do this, they had to capture a very large sample of foxes and choose the tamest, calmest, and most docile among them, then get those foxes to reproduce and go through the sorting process again with the kits. Even if they hit upon the tamest fox ever bred, nobody can say yet if they will be able to find the trait for domesticity, not just repressing the instinct to attack but actually wanting to be part of the family "pack" and take orders from an alpha.

Artifacts

The discussion in class really made me think about artifacts and what measure they can be defined by. I tend to think of artifacts as historical objects which are both created by and indicative of culture at a certain time period. Thinking of people as artifacts was interesting because that is really exactly what people are. Mostly, they are products of their environment. Meeting a child can tell you more about his parents than a painted vase could tell you about Sumer.
If we make our children into artifacts of ourselves, then many things are artifacts. We alter  the very water we drink, the genetics of plants and animals, every aspect of our environment. We've changed the world to suit us like breaking in a mattress.

Question

via braden: Carlson seems to imply that for each setting there is a "right" mindset to have and way to view the landscape/ flower/ summer afternoon. Is this true? Or is it possible that there are multiple "right" ways to view a natural environment? Or is there no "right" way and perhaps only shades of appreciation? 

I think there is a vague "right way" to view a natural environment. It's possible, but implausible, that someone would totally misdirect their attention when in a natural environment. However, I think there are probably a lot of ways to appreciate nature, and people tend to appreciate different aspects more than others. Maybe Carlson is  saying that we shouldn't focus in on one thing, but allow ourselves to absorb all of nature as a full experience. He quotes Yi-Fu Tuan on the ideal way to view nature, saying: 

"An adult must learn to be yielding and careless like a child if he were to enjoy nature polymorphously... feel free to stretch out on the hay beside the brook and bathe in a meld of physical sensations... Such an environment might break all the formal rules of euphony and aesthetics, substituting confusion for order, and yet be wholly satisfying." (543)