Man the gardener?

[ComradeMan]

My own personal belief, and I draw many of my ideas from social-ecology for this is that man is a gardener and the world is the garden. That all social policies and political developments need to take a long, hard look at man's role within nature.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I choose a different view. This is because if you include animals, I would say man should look after them (I wouldn't say serve). As for caring for the planet, I think you have to take a utilitarian approach. Is letting a beautiful forest die out going to create the potential loss of cures, the loss of aesthetics, a loss of species, etc? If so, we should consider that as a negative when approaching any decisions about the future of the forest.

We could theoretically justify killing a person to saving something in nature, but I can't think of a lot of examples. One might be if the forest is full of cancer curing plants. Of course, that wouldn't be a controversial example. Perhaps the "last of a species" might justify some special intervention, even if the species is a plant.

The goal, for me, is to improve the lives of sentient beings both now and in the future. Any decisions regarding nature would be subservient to this end. I'm not a hardline utilitarian, but I use it "generally" to address issues. This is just avoiding the inevitable "horribly immoral act that utilitarianism supposedly justifies" being presented to show how I'm an evil person. Sometimes I accept those "horrible acts" as justified, but it depends on the case.

So basically, nature only matters with respect to utility. That includes the utility of all pain/pleasure feeling things.

[ComradeMan]

My point about serving did also include the idea of taking care of. The way I see it that without nature we have had it so we had better look after what we've got and adjust our ways accordingly.

[ellipsis]

Man is of nature and dependent on what the natural world provides for him in terms of a livable planet and the natural resources it provides. Nature would do fine without us but we would be nothing without the earth.

[Sasha]

^ this, with the notice that humanity can probely survive for an long time without an concetion with nature.
but eventualy we will die out and nature will cary on like nothing happend.

[Decolonize The Left]

Voted other.

There is no 'dominion,' 'servitude,' or 'subordinate' involved because there is no meaning inherent in 'nature' and 'man.' Furthermore there is no line between 'natural' and 'artificial.'

- August

[Drace]

Such a question cannot be analyzed unless you view it from a spiritual view.

[danny bohy]

Humans think were so different. we are animals just like verything else. we have technology that destroys the world which to me makes us the most stupid species some times. we should be trying to live in harmony with nature like every other species. if a technological advance affects the planet it is not justifiable.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Humanity should always been seeking to expand it's control and domination of nature. Such a state, however, can only be achieved in a communist society, a society where production is organised on a rational basis and geared to meet the needs of humanity and not those of the market.

[ComradeMan]

Humanity should always been seeking to expand it's control and domination of nature. Such a state, however, can only be achieved in a communist society, a society where production is organised on a rational basis and geared to meet the needs of humanity and not those of the market.


Ciao Niccolò :)

But isn't this problem- does not modern science etc teach us that it is nature that actually controls everything? Every time man tries to interfere with nature or upsets the natural balance it ends in some ecological doomsday or other! One example that comes to mind is the business of the cane toads in Australia.

Would it not be better if we thought that our supreme duty, calling first and foremost were to actually look after our niche so to speak and thus derive all other points from that position? It is the one thing that supersedes all divisions is it not?

[Il Medico]

I think humanity can over come every obstacle nature puts in front of it, with the except of inevitable death. The 99% of species that preceded us have taught us that if you play natures game you will eventually lose. Humanity can achive anything it really strives for IMO. Terraform Mars and Venus, sure. Collapse Jupiter into a star, we could do it. Spread humanity across the heavens, we must. Nature must be bent to the use of humanity if we wish to survive let alone prosper in the long term.

[Meridian]

I think humanity can over come every obstacle nature puts in front of it, with the except of inevitable death. The 99% of species that preceded us have taught us that if you play natures game you will eventually lose.
Except that "losing" is a human term that is only meaningful to us, so species that went extinct, if that is what you are referring to, did not "lose". You could just as well say they "won".

[ellipsis]

Furthermore there is no line between 'natural' and 'artificial.'

This has been an argument for a while now; everything that exists is made of or was manufactured using naturally occurring materials, including the light coming from my screen right now.

[ComradeMan]

This has been an argument for a while now; everything that exists is made of or was manufactured using naturally occurring materials, including the light coming from my screen right now.

I know that is an argument, but we know the difference. Even uranium is natural but we wouldn't want it as a food additive. I appreciate this "holistic" way of looking at industrial production etc but the point is that we are now facinf grave ecological threats, overpopulation and potentially cataclysmic events and we need to adapt or ..... die.

As for us colonising Mars etc---- so be it, but I don't think we can think about such things until we can manage our planet in a more harmonious way. Hence the great responsibility of being the "gardener" so to speak.

"Original" man (my term because I don't like the word primitive) lived far more in harmony with nature, the difference between a borrower and a taker, and some peoples around the world still live this way. Not to idealise the life of a hunter-gatherer but I do believe that these peoples have retained something we have lost.

It reminds me of a saying I read somewhere from a Native American in the 19th century "When the white man has cut down all the trees perhaps he will realise you can't eat money" or something along those lines.

I am not saying we should all go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, we can't, but we can perhaps seek to have as little impact as possible on the environment and become more like "borrowers" again if we adopt the we are the "gardeners" approach.

Afterall, who doesn't like a nice garden?:)

[bcbm]

The 99% of species that preceded us have taught us that if you play natures game you will eventually lose.

humanity has not been "playing nature's game" for some time now, and we've created the largest mass extinction in millions of years and seem to be generally threatening our own ability to survive on the planet.

[Tatarin]

I guess this is a pretty philosophical question. First, what does "nature" mean? The nature of this planet, I guess? But from which point in time? As one asks these questions, "nature" is extended beyond one planet and into the beginnings of the universe. An meteorite may come down any day and smash a city, is that considered "nature", for example?

Will humans ever be able to control all the great forces of the universe? No one knows. For now I'd had to say no. Perhaps if humans transform into something else that can't be considered humans.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Every time man tries to interfere with nature or upsets the natural balance it ends in some ecological doomsday or other! One example that comes to mind is the business of the cane toads in Australia.

You are correct. This is specifically why I specify that such a state of being in harmony with and in command of nature could only be achieved in a communist society.

The problem isn't humanity, the problem is capitalism.

[RedRise]

Humans and nature should be in a balance where neither dominates over the other. After all, humans were originally part of nature. (Wether they still are or not is open to debate.:unsure:)


The problem isn't humanity, the problem is capitalism.

I understand that a lot of commercial industries are having adverse affects on 'nature' but explain more clearly how communism would rectify this situation.

[9]

I am most in agreement with Niccolo here, that the human race should rule over nature and should seek to expand its control. But, as Niccolo also correctly notes, this can only be properly done [without detrimental consequences, anyway] when production is driven by the needs, wishes, and consideration of humanity as a whole. This, as opposed to being driven by private profit (as is presently the case), to benefit a small class of people at the expense of the majority and, eventually, of the human race as a whole.
So perhaps that differs from some of the views here, which seem (correct me if I am making too grand an inference) to suggest that man’s/woman’s role is merely to tend to nature’s needs rather than to exercise control over nature. But its worth keeping in mind that obviously when human need is the driving force of production, exercising control over nature will not mean, as it means today, raping nature and natural resources or utilizing them in an unsustainable way that jeopardizes our species. But I am staunchly speciesist; I am a tireless advocate of human supremacy :D

[Luisrah]

Humans and nature should be in a balance where neither dominates over the other. After all, humans were originally part of nature. (Wether they still are or not is open to debate.:unsure:)



I understand that a lot of commercial industries are having adverse affects on 'nature' but explain more clearly how communism would rectify this situation.

Reducing waste of course!

Capitalism squeezes the Earth like an orange to make profit.

I'll give you an example.
You buy a computer. And one day, a little thing in it broke.

Communism: They replace the part you need and get your computer up and running.

Capitalism: They tell you to buy another one because yours is unrepairably (do you say that? lol) damaged.

Now you just need to calculate in which of those do you pay more, waste more, and recycle less.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

wtf is "nature's game"?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

we're not here to serve nature, but we are subordinate to it
we are completely at its mercy
but we have no duty whatsoever to "serve" it, whatever that means

[Luisrah]

We are a creation of nature.
We showed up by chance, we're like any other animal, we just use nature more than other animals do.

There is no mother nature that binds all things together (lol that sounded like the Force in Star Wars)

We certainly depend on nature now, unless we start eating each other plus rocks for minerals.
Nature made us inteligent, and now we do what we want.
If we want to blow up Earth, we can do it, there's nothing stopping us.
The thing is if we blow it, where would we get our food?

[Raúl Duke]

While humans only has created a society and/or social constructs that creates the appearance of being "detached from nature" in reality our society is "in nature" and not separate. When natural disaster strikes human settlements and cause destruction is a strong example that we do not live "detached from nature." Our civilization sits on it.

I say we stop seeing things as the whole "nature-man" dichotomy and realize we depend on nature and have arisen from nature. Because we depend on nature, we need to also maintain nature so to continue our existence and/or lifestyle. Thus, I say we should focus on a sustainable model instead of "deep-ecology's" view of nature over man or the "man above nature; can do anything with it."

Our relationship with nature is symbiotic. Nature can harm us (hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc), we can harm nature (oil spills, over-fishing, climate change, melting ice caps, destruction of habitats). Nature has benefited us (natural resources, natural precursors for many drugs, etc), and we should benefit nature by sustaining it since we have the capacity to do so.

[ComradeMan]

While humans only has created a society and/or social constructs that creates the appearance of being "detached from nature" in reality our society is "in nature" and not separate. When natural disaster strikes human settlements and cause destruction is a strong example that we do not live "detached from nature." Our civilization sits on it.

I say we stop seeing things as the whole "nature-man" dichotomy and realize we depend on nature and have arisen from nature. Because we depend on nature, we need to also maintain nature so to continue our existence and/or lifestyle. Thus, I say we should focus on a sustainable model instead of "deep-ecology's" view of nature over man or the "man above nature; can do anything with it."

Our relationship with nature is symbiotic. Nature can harm us (hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc), we can harm nature (oil spills, over-fishing, climate change, melting ice caps, destruction of habitats). Nature has benefited us (natural resources, natural precursors for many drugs, etc), and we should benefit nature by sustaining it since we have the capacity to do so.


Ha ha---- symbiosis, that was the word I was looking for.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I really don't think "we" could "blow up" the Earth

yes, in recent times we've seen that we can harm nature, as Raul said
obviously we need to maintain nature in order to survive
I don't believe we have any duties to maintain nature as a goal in and of itself
we need to preserve it insofar as it's a sine qua non of our existence

nowadays, nature is partially at our mercy
but in a much greater way, we are at nature's mercy

we are not capable of destroying the natural world
the natural world is quite capable of eradicating human kind

our "dominion" over nature is very much limited to a fraction of the more vulnerable living things on this planet
meanwhile, a meteor could quite effortlessly obliterate all of us and everything here

[Il Medico]

humanity has not been "playing nature's game" for some time now, and we've created the largest mass extinction in millions of years and seem to be generally threatening our own ability to survive on the planet.
Yes I agree that despite or less than harmonious relationship with nature, we haven't used our technology to our advantage. I said we should control nature and use it for our good, not destroy it, which seems to be the current campaign. :(

[bcbm]

Yes I agree that despite or less than harmonious relationship with nature, we haven't used our technology to our advantage. I said we should control nature and use it for our good, not destroy it, which seems to be the current campaign. :(

what do you mean specifically by "control nature?"

[pastradamus]

Man is reliant on the Natural World for Food, Clothing and just about everything else. We are however Not subordinate to Nature in any way - We are a product of the natural world which makes us a part of it. Nature isn't some God that created us and so we are subordinate to this divine being we ARE Part of Nature that is to say, the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world.

And just to shout one more thing out at people here. Nature is Not Communism. Communism is an political and socio-economic system and nature is not - so just drop that one out of the argument for the sake of Logic.

[Il Medico]

what do you mean specifically by "control nature?"
Well I talked about transforming Venus and Mars, but on Earth some examples would be seeding clouds to try to prevent heavy snow/rain fall, building dams to create electricty, building sea walls/flood gates, diverting storms (I know that is not possible yet, but if human can figure out a way to divert or break up things like Hurricanes to protect human lives, they should), etc. We should harness nature for our benefit on earth and change it where it is not conducive to the survival of man. (Like other planets)

[Dean]

Man is part of nature. We must live in the context of nature, and subsequently nature must live with us suckling at it. neither lives to "serve" the other; rather, both must live side-by-side.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well I talked about transforming Venus and Mars, but on Earth some examples would be seeding clouds to try to prevent heavy snow/rain fall, building dams to create electricty, building sea walls/flood gates, diverting storms (I know that is not possible yet, but if human can figure out a way to divert or break up things like Hurricanes to protect human lives, they should), etc. We should harness nature for our benefit on earth and change it where it is not conducive to the survival of man. (Like other planets)

you're talking about using nature and defending ourselves from it
every living thing does that to some degree
it doesn't mean nature is under our control or ever will be