[at-l] People, Nature and "Development"

[Jim Bullard]

So what constitutes "natural". If we use the animal world as the
standard, in order to be "natural" humans should abandon clothing and
all but the most rudimentary shelter. We should cease farming, and the
creation of anything be it art or technology. We should give up
medicine and allow ourselves to die from relatively minor illnesses
and injury. Surely no one would argue for that.

One of my college professors was fond of saying "define your terms".
In any debate that is excellent advice to avoid arguing endlessly only
to find that the parties have different definitions of the subject of
the debate. For my purposes I shall say that humans are "natural"
because they are part of the natural world or as Mother Earth News was
wont to say (paraphrased) "for all mans art, culture and technology we
owe our existence to 6 inches of topsoil and the fact that it rains".
We are dependent upon, and therefor part of, nature.

So the question is not whether we and our activities are "natural".
The question is whether our influence on the world is positive in the
sense that it cooperates with the natural processes upon which we
reply for our existence. Humans have survived in the world by virtue
of our ability to create. We are not entirely unique in that regard.
Beavers build dams, birds build nests and researchers have discovered
that some other species use primitive tools. We humans do these things
with greater sophistication and thus had a greater effect on the world
around us. It seems to me that what really sets humans apart is our
quest to have more (some of us, FAR MORE) than we need and our
disregard for the negative effects that our greed can have on the
world around us.

Our "natural" ability to alter the world to satisfy our desires is
compounded by our success. It is not unlike species whose populations
grow under favorable conditions, for example a bountiful food supply,
to the point that their numbers decimate the food supply with the
expected result. Theoretically, we humans have the intelligence to
foresee such things and modify our behavior as a result. In practice
however, immediate gratification and self interest often rule. When
enough members of a society ignore the consequences of their
collective behavior the result will be no different than the plague of
locusts that eats itself into starvation.

Although we are natural beings in my view, we also have a greater
natural ability to affect the world around us and that entails a
responsibility to limit our impact on the rest of nature by exercising
good stewardship.

On 12/29/06, Grammar Coach <grammarcoach1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've long felt that humans are not part of nature, at least not in the sense that other species are.  Sometimes I think differently when I observe that most humans spell like animals and use the apostrophe the way an ape swings a bone, but generally:
>
> 1.  Humans have no fixed ecological niche, unlike animals.  Animals carve out a niche, defend and preserve it, but generally do not disturb other animals' niches.  Humans are niche takers and destroyers, resulting in the extincition of other species.
>
> 2.  Humans do not operate by habit.   Natural species (animals) operate the same way generation after generation, based on instinct.  They may adapt somewhat to changes in their environment, but sparrows will always build nests of twigs and beavers will always build dams of logs, until a genetic mutation or series of them creates a new species with new habits.  Humans, by contrast, are constantly changing their behaviours and habitats, largely through unending advances in technology.  Animals have no such open-ended tool.  We have gone from cave dwellers to tool builders to farmers to harnessing electrical power to space flight to tinkering with genetic codes.
>
> 3.  Humans are capable of destroying their own species in its entirety, not to mention taking other species with them.  Animals can fight and kill each other, usually in small numbers, but not wipe themselves out entirely.
>
> Clark Wright <icw at wardanddavis.com> wrote: I think those who know me will attest that I have done a lot to protect
> various natural areas, passionately supported many a land trust, etc.
> However, it has been a while since I have posted anything on this list re
> one of my major "pet peeves" re how society has come to the conclusion that
> all of mankind is not natural.  One of my favorite "philosophical" questions
> to throw out while speaking or writing at various environmental law
> seminars, forums, etc. is this:  "Describe in defensible, logical terms, the
> difference between a beaver dam and Hoover Dam."  The more you think about
> that one (hopefully with a curious, open mind!) the more interesting things
> can get – at least in my head, that is the case!  Similarly, ask and try to
> answer in logical, defensible and absolute terms "What is pollution?"  :-)
> Again, the point here is not to defend human-caused development activities
> or damage to ecosystems previously not impacted (or rather less impacted) by
> people, but rather to try and reframe the debate in what I believe is a more
> ecologically and logically sound way – namely, that people are just as much
> a part of the natural ecosystems of the world and universe as any other
> creature.  We are not inherently "unnatural," and what we build and do is
> just as natural from a logical point of view as that done by any other
> creature.  To me, it is important not to case important environmental issues
> as "us versus them," or "the natural order" versus "unnatural, polluting
> humans."  Instead, let us all recognize our common origins, and our
> God-given responsibility to be good stewards, and let us recognize the fact
> that we now know much more about how our actions can affect other parts of
> the (same!) natural systems that we are a part of, and let us recognize that
> we need to make conscious value choices re the things that are important to
> us – but let us do all that without excising our own natural role in the
> order of things.  I think if we do so, we can avoid some unconscious and
> conscious guilt trips, hurtful divisions among ourselves, and possibly
> accomplish more good and less infighting.  In the end, one thing is for sure
> – we are all here together in this amazing web of interrelated ecological
> systems we call Earth and – even larger – the universe in which the Earth
> (and us!) are just an infinitesimal speck . . .
>
> I guess in a way I am advocating for humility, coming home, and coming
> together . . . passion for our particular goals is a good thing – nay, a
> critical thing, but passion often is wasted and blunted where directed or
> caused by conscious and unconscious feelings that you and I are not part of
> the natural order of things.  We are indeed part of the natural order of
> things, and in a basic sense, all we do is indeed natural; the better way to
> put the challenge is that we are uniquely endowed with the ability to learn
> more and more about the potential consequences of our actions, and with that
> knowledge (of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, to put it in Biblical
> terms) comes a huge dose of responsibility – responsibility, but not guilt
> for naturally wanting to build things, do things, and achieve things.  I
> long for a day where we can focus intensely on just what it is that we value
> and want to protect, preserve and pass on to our children, while still
> celebrating our own natural abilities to build, achieve and develop.  Much
> to think about for the New Year! :-)
>
> Thru-Thinker
>

-- 
Jim Bullard
http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/