On the other side of the spectrum you get the idea or belief that intelligent life forms are the central force in the universe and have a moral status or value higher than that of all other organisms. This is called post-naturalism. From a post-naturalist perspective, the view of nature as inherently valuable for its own sake is flawed, and it is acceptable to change nature if it suits humanity's greater needs.
Which of these views is the "right" one? From a purely ecological perspective, the answer would appear to be the naturalist one--it gives us an objective view of the world and all of the ecosystems it contains. But rejecting something simply because it is not "natural" has its pitfalls. For example, many otherwise reasonable environmentalists rail against the proliferation of genetically modified vegetables, for no other reason than that they are "not what nature intended." While it is true that genetic engineering is a field that is not well understood, there is no good reason to shun it like that. The same is true, as I mentioned in a previous post, of nuclear power. It seems that many people who care about nature really only care about looking natural. This phenomenon-- the dark side of naturalism--has been termed "nature woo" by some writers.
On the other hand, the worldview espoused by post-naturalism is not without its own issues. Chief among these is the fact that it emphasizes the idea of humanity having a higher moral ground than all other species. Taking this to its logical conclusion, then, would mean that preserving nature for its own sake is not merely unnecessary but inadvisable.
In an ideal world, the two sides would be able to reach some form of compromise. Naturalists would be able to accept that in many cases human technology is the solution they are looking for. Likewise, post-naturalists would be able to acknowledge that simply because something is not immediately useful, it doesn't necessarily lack value.
Genetically-engineered crops are a source of contention between those who think that humans should not tamper with nature and those who think we have a right to. However, this need not be the case.
If human beings are a naturally evolved species than what we make and do is also the result of natural processes. Cities are nature. We are nature. We may of course be nature out of balance, but nature was often out of balance before we ever came along. Of course those events were brought on by massive shifts in our atmosphere made by volcanoes, the evolution of plants (introduction of oxygen), meteor strikes etc. The question is, if we have a choice do we want to live in a world out of balance, since the result of such moments of ecosystem instability is mass extinction etc? Though we are nature, and what we make is nature, the consequences of our not using our intellect and abilities to mitigate our impact are very probably dangerous to both non human species and human beings alike. Since I'm sure the author would say "the difference between us and other natural imbalance creators, bacteria, meteors etc is that we can stop ourselves" ( we talked about it on Facebook) I would pose the question, can we? Can we really stop ourselves? Is our control an illusion and are we slaves to our nature as well?
ReplyDeleteIf human beings are a naturally evolved species than what we make and do is also the result of natural processes. Cities are nature. We are nature. We may of course be nature out of balance, but nature was often out of balance before we ever came along. Of course those events were brought on by massive shifts in our atmosphere made by volcanoes, the evolution of plants (introduction of oxygen), meteor strikes etc. The question is, if we have a choice do we want to live in a world out of balance, since the result of such moments of ecosystem instability is mass extinction etc? Though we are nature, and what we make is nature, the consequences of our not using our intellect and abilities to mitigate our impact are very probably dangerous to both non human species and human beings alike. Since I'm sure the author would say "the difference between us and other natural imbalance creators, bacteria, meteors etc is that we can stop ourselves" ( we talked about it on Facebook) I would pose the question, can we? Can we really stop ourselves? Is our control an illusion and are we slaves to our nature as well?
ReplyDeleteYou posted your reply twice. Anyway, you do have a good point. Throughout human history the same things have always been the main drivers of our society. Food. Shelter. Reproduction. Raw natural resources. All of these are basic, animal instincts. Most of what we do--the wars we fight, the buildings and artworks we create--is somehow related to these needs. And that has been the same for thousands of years. Even the fact that most people today don't consider global warming to be a fact speaks volumes about this. It doesn't threaten them personally, so why should they bother with it?
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to say is, humans have the intelligence and the ability to change if we wanted to. The problem is, we don't want to, and we never have, because that's how it's always been done.