But the vocablary we use embodies and displays our world-view and the values we hold or that are simply generally about. Some will not use the word 'man' because it is thought to be 'politically incorrect'. It always alights on Latin abstract replacments for the concrete term. If we think simply of 'humans' as one entity, then we can easily think of 'technology' as another entity. But if we think of 'man' or 'Man' then we are brought into contact with our actuality and our modes of being, which are manifest as our culture.
Culture is human.
The attempts of much environmental thinking to regard man simply as a biological entity are in fact reinforcing the divorce of man from nature and the completeness of himself. The dualistic mindset of empirical science has crept deeply into environmentalism and so it attempts to deal with the problems created by the dualistic mindset with the same mindset. I fully appreciate that John is trying to open up the possibilty of a more inclusive view, and I fully support this attempt. I present it as a problem, not a criticism. One phrase which tends to this is John's definition of sentient as 'all that moves'.