[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

"We have always been resoundingly powerful creatures, and the urgency of addressing humankind’s intrinsic dangerousness was recognized long before we had fossil fuels, industrial-scale production and nuclear weapons. This world and its inhabitants are very delicate, and we haven’t yet developed the grace to keep from breaking things every time we turn around.

If you are human, you are a bull in the china shop. That’s the human condition. The sooner we recognize it, the better."

- David Cain

The only way to truly protect nature is to stay as far away from it as possible. We should limit our intrusion into nature as much as possible, leaving as much land as complete wilderness as we can.

I think I've used up the word "as," so y'all will have to get along with it now.

That strikes me as purely rhetorical. Maybe that's the point? But seriously, a nuclear weapon is as natural as a beehive; the Hoover Dam is as natural as a beaver's. Either none of it is or all of it is.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by slap_j

That strikes me as purely rhetorical. Maybe that's the point? But seriously, a nuclear weapon is as natural as a beehive; the Hoover Dam is as natural as a beaver's. Either none of it is or all of it is.

I'm not really sure what you are saying.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I'm not really sure what you are saying.

Simply that we cannot intrude into or disturb nature any more than a wolf can. Nature conceived of as something other than human is hostile to humanity.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Simply that we cannot intrude into or disturb nature any more than a wolf can. Nature conceived of as something other than human is hostile to humanity.

I wouldn't say our intrusion into nature is of a different kind than that of a wolf, but it is most definitely of a different degree.

Our ability to intrude into nature has far surpassed the ability of nature to fight back.

It is quite likely that if we wanted to we could destroy all life on Earth. It would be laughable to even consider this claim for any other living species. Sure some super-bacteria could potentially kill all human (or even all mammal) life, but the same bacteria would not also infect insects, fish and oak trees. We are just as proficient at killing insects, fish and oak trees as we are at killing mammals. And we're just about as proficient at killing reptiles, bacteria, viruses, birds, crustaceans, mollusks, and any other type of life you can name.

We also have the unique weakness of thinking we know better. We think we can control nature. We think that we know which species are important and which aren't, even though we've given ourselves plenty of evidence to the contrary (such as the times we've eliminated a prey animal by eliminating its predator). On a daily basis, we destroy species that we never knew, nor will ever know, existed.

I do not suggest that our intrusion into nature is unnatural. I simply propose humility.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I wouldn't say our intrusion into nature is of a different kind than that of a wolf, but it is most definitely of a different degree.

Sorry, I think maybe I'm being too confusing with my word choice. What I mean to say is that talking in such a way is a sort of category error. Nature is not something apart from us that we modulate or upset or intrude upon or attack or whatever else. We're enmeshed in nature just like everything else. If we ever destroy the world it will be just as natural as if an asteroid did.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Sorry, I think maybe I'm being too confusing with my word choice. What I mean to say is that talking in such a way is a sort of category error. Nature is not something apart from us that we modulate or upset or intrude upon or attack or whatever else. We're enmeshed in nature just like everything else. If we ever destroy the world it will be just as natural as if an asteroid did.

While, strictly speaking, I agree with you, it's just a terminology issue. If you force this use of the word "nature," the discussion is pointless. Yet I think there is something worth discussing here. So I won't let the precision of the term "nature" deter me.

To be more straightforward: No life can exist without at least the exclusion, if not outright destruction, of other forms of life. Humans, however, are uniquely capable of excluding and destroying, and we have a history of being very bad at managing that power.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

While, strictly speaking, I agree with you, it's just a terminology issue.

I think it's deeper than that; more of a conceptual issue. If we think nature is something set apart then we make pretensions to knowledge of some homeostatic equilibrium that we're interrupting. But if that's not real then we're not going to accomplish what we set out to do.

To be more straightforward: No life can exist without at least the exclusion, if not outright destruction, of other forms of life. Humans, however, are uniquely capable of excluding and destroying, and we have a history of being very bad at managing that power.

We're reckless and selfish, yes. But that can be addressed without an appeal to nature. The Christian ought to find his/her concern in the knowledge of the orientation of creation toward a consummation with God.

The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein - Psalm 24:1

[bobthecockroach]

I'm not worried about upsetting an equilibrium. I'm worried about unintended consequences.

We don't know our own strength. When I read "breaking things every time we turn around" in the quote I posted, I don't think about breaking "nature." I just think about breaking things we didn't intend to break.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I think it's deeper than that; more of a conceptual issue. If we think nature is something set apart then we make pretensions to knowledge of some homeostatic equilibrium that we're interrupting. But if that's not real then we're not going to accomplish what we set out to do.

This feels a bit like rationalization.

Does it really take a philisophical discussion to understand the difference between a primordeal swamp and a suberb? Between a river full of industrial pollutants and one not? Between a homogenious ecosystem and a heterogenious one?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I don't think about breaking "nature." I just think about breaking things we didn't intend to break.

Ah, well we are closer in thought than I imagined. That's what talking is for, I guess.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Does it really take a philisophical discussion to understand the difference between a primordeal swamp and a suberb? Between a river full of industrial pollutants and one not? Between a homogenious ecosystem and a heterogenious one?

To make a simple distinction? I don't reckon so. Maybe I'm not following what you're getting at. What I'm saying is that there is no pre-human equilibrium to return to. Not that we shouldn't intervene. We should intervene! Global warming is a serious problem, for instance.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

To make a simple distinction? I don't reckon so. Maybe I'm not following what you're getting at. What I'm saying is that there is no pre-human equilibrium to return to. Not that we shouldn't intervene. We should intervene! Global warming is a serious problem, for instance.

And yet the influence of man, and it's similarity to natural disaster, is pretty clear.