In examining ecological impact, let’s not overlook humans’ role
Nature doesn’t exist to suit our preferences, and our failure to understand a species’ role is no reason to dismiss it.
I was “tick”-eled by Wilson Kerr’s assertion that “most animals have a clear role in the natural order of things” and that ticks “elicit no such sympathetic understanding of purpose or place.” (Time Outdoors: Tick, tick … boom, October 11, 2026.)
While I am no lover of ticks, Kerr’s perspective is decidedly human-centered. From the perspective of many other species, humans are the scourge, transforming habitats and driving other forms of life toward extinction. To some pathogens, ticks are an invaluable means of transportation.
There is no doubt that tick-borne illnesses can be devastating and that we are well advised to take every precaution to avoid being bitten. Like Kerr, I have no desire to play a role in the life cycle of a debilitating infection. But humans, too, are subject to the evolutionary and ecological processes that shape life on Earth.
Nature doesn’t exist to suit our preferences, and our failure to understand a species’ role is no reason to dismiss it. Assuming otherwise risks blinding us to the ecological relationships on which we, too, depend.
Chris Randall
Central Street
