knightnblu wrote...
The direction of this thread reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend a few years ago. He asserted that man was a part of nature and that was why he had a responsibility towards it. I countered that if this were true and man did in fact have a duty to nature to preserve and protect it, then by definition he must be outside of nature in order to govern it because in order to govern one must elevate one's self above the governed.
However, if one asserts that man was indeed a part of nature, then whatever he does to the environment is by definition natural. Therefore trash, urban decay, abandoned structures, strip mining, and even the BP oil spill are all natural occurrences. This is because man is a part of nature and therefore everything that he does is a natural occurrence.
If one argues that sentience demands more of a responsibility towards nature, then you must fall into the first camp because "knowing better" and "finding a better way" also removes man from nature. You would not argue that an ape clean up after himself would you? I assert that there is no way that man can impose his will upon nature without extricating himself from it and elevating himself to a dominant and therefore controlling position.
You're presenting a meaningless distinction. Let's take an oil spill for example; whether or not you view it as a "natural" consequence of mankind's intelligence, it's still destructive to the environment and animals which live in the region of the spill.
As for apes cleaning up after themselves? Apes don't strip mine. Apes don't leave non-biodegradable plastic garbage laying around. Any "mess" an ape leaves in its environment is going to be a byproduct of that environment and will be broken down and recycled by other elements of the local ecosystem.
And finally, to say one has a responsibility toward nature is not the same as saying one "governs" it. Humanity is a part of nature, because if we divorce ourselves from nature we will die. We need clean air to breath, clean water to drink, a certain amount of sunlight for healthy vitamin k production, we need food (which is again dependent upon a clean environment) without these things we sicken, whither, and die. We are a part of nature because life itself IS nature. It makes no sense to consider one independent of the other. Our lives and the natural environment are parts of the same complex system. To poison our air and water, to render our fields barren and infertile, is all irresponsible because ultimately it's tying a lynch around our own necks...or the necks of future generations.
Ancient people knew this lesson well, because they directly felt the effects of ruining the land in which they lived. With modernization and high techology, we are able to create the illusion that mankind has conquered nature and commands it, but this is not so. Industrial society is like an economic bubble; once the industrial resources on which we artifically thrive and bolster our civilization are depleted, everything will come crashing down in a violent end and you will see a return to pre-industrial population levels, with people living in much smaller, more localized communities no larger than the immediate natural resources of the land are capable of supporting.
Modifié par marshalleck, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:28 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
