That isn't to say we don't rely on ecological processes for our physical survival - we do, the difference is that for us this is a contingency (unlike other animals, where it is an inevitability of their existence) the difference is that we have no pre-ordained relationship to it. Not even as it concerns our physical reproduction even (i.e. the possibility of synthetic bodies, etc.). The least common denominator is the social dimension - this is the dimension that subsumes all others.
An ecology refers to processes that which organisms relate to an environment, which it was adapted to survive in, and so on. Ecological processes underlie all animals - but not humans, humans are not bound by any ecology as it concerns their physiological make up. Any relation or dependency on ecological processes is something that is fundamentally subsumed by our social relations. Meaning, we don't 'fit' in nature, we don't have any balance with it, etc.
When you describe humans as not having an "ecology", are you using the term the same way that Continental German thinkers discuss "Umwelt" (which I've seen more commonly translated as "environment")? If so, why do you prefer the term "ecology", and if not, is there a particular distinction you have in mind?
