and so I begin my blog on the "Environmental Debate"

What I have chosen to look at regarding the question “Is the human race responsible for the demise of the earth?” Is how humans play a role in nature, to what degree are they part of nature, their use of nature, do humans have complete control over the earth, when did it start, where has it lead to and what it has caused? So I decided no to take out one category within this Environmental debate, but to look at different arguments and views of human’s part in Nature.

The philosopher Charles Darwin came up with the expression “survival of the fittest” and this is how he described nature- when he said this he was explaining natural evolution and how nature will always be in control. But obviously at that time he had no idea of what human’s capabilities are. 

So what's your view, are we part of it or not?

Another great philosopher Rene Descartes came up with the concept of the separation between humans and nature.

 “The quest for pure objectivity requires a kind of godlike detachment on the part of the observer (humans) from the observed (nature). By him saying this it in some way made nature look like a possession, something that could be taken advantage of and controlled. As Descartes put it, the whole point was to “render ourselves the lords and possessors of nature” (Descartes)

As humans today and the position that we are in within nature brings up the question, are we still actually part of nature, or as Craig Hawkins likes to put it “to what degree are humans part of nature?” he talks about humans are becoming disconnected from nature, and it isn’t only relevant now, it was relevant from the day that man first discovered fire, then followed by every other discovery and invention. Hawkins says that all our technological progression comes from our discoveries and these discoveries have begun to negatively effect human’s connection to nature. 

“Mankind is beginning to wrap itself in a technological bubble, that separates us from the more hostile elements of nature” Hawkins.

Although on the other hand you have the biology of our part in nature, where our bodies are still attacked by viruses, our biology still involves us as natural beings, so to that extent we are still part of nature, but hopefully that’s not the only part that factor that puts us in line with nature.

So according to Hawkins his answer is yes, humans, to a degree, are still part of nature, but he says that this part that we’re involved in is getting smaller and could collapse one day into a “technological singularity” where at that point we will be completely disconnected from nature. 

“The fact that we are still part of nature does not mean that we always will be. Our technological revolutionary progress is very rapidly outstripping natures slow evolutionary processes and we are more and more encasing ourselves in a technological bubble beyond nature.”

Another view is by Silva Payne- “Humans often set themselves apart from nature as if we are in no way connected. Of course this is not the case at all; we are all living organisms and cannot exist in a vacuum. We may think that we are better than, or the master of, nature but when ice storms, hurricanes or tsunamis occur we have to concede that we are not. Nature offers a lot of lessons for us to learn, if we have the wisdom to do so.”

She brings in the idea that at the end of the day nature is much more powerful than we can comprehend, that nature holds knowledge for humans that we can greatly benefit from. She suggests we may think that we are above nature because we think we are above it but against that there comes a point in nature where we are not in control.

Another similar opinion is one from author Bob Zimmerman. He claims, “We are still part of nature even if we destroy the rest of nature to benefit ourselves.” He looks at human involvement in nature as “survival of the fittest” and our place in the food chain, being the highest. I do not necessarily agree with his view, he isn’t taking in the fact that humans are massive in their amounts, larger than any animal population. We use technology to sustain us, not nature. We have begun to rely more on technology than we do nature- so his opinion is not taking in the fact that there is an unfair advantage. Survival of the fittest would be relevant if we were actually closely involved in nature, which I believe we aren’t.

Another Author, Jamerson Rising, brings up the concept that the biggest problem man causes actually arises when humans start thinking that they are above or not part of nature. “That has never been true and never will be. Man is a member of the animal kingdom, and until that changes, man will be part of nature.” He suggests that it is rather more appropriate to ask what makes us different to other animals. But in my opinion this is already counteracting Risings argument. What makes us different is that we exploit and try and control nature, how does that make us part of the animal Kingdom if our actions are not even natural.

Rising continues with his argument, saying that humans have this idea that they are so powerful that they are influencing and changing climates around the globe. He says that this shouldn’t be mankind’s primary concern; the attention should rather be directed towards the enormous amount of pollution, which is being “spewed” in the environment. “Are human beings and mankind still part of nature? They have never stopped being part of nature, and are very unable to do so, regardless of how much arrogance and egotism they can muster. For good or bad, all animals act in accordance to their nature, and unfortunately, the same is true for mankind. The biggest key is the question; will mankind ever realize that he is part of nature? The answer to that one is still being determined.”

An article I read on the internet “Can we Stop Trying to Control Nature” by Emily Loose, has a section in it which is titled “The Great Western Dream of Controlling Nature” it says how the idea of controlling nature goes back to the 11^th century, when water power was used in industrial processes. Although there was a separation between science and technology, so progress was slow- Technology belonged to the craftsman and science belonged to the philosophers. But in the 1600’s this all changed when Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes integrated all the systems in the world- describing the world as one “colossal machine” where humans are in control.

Another article I read titled “The meaning of Marxism Who’s destroying the environment” by Paul D’Amato spoke about the control humans have over the environment. It says how the environmental catastrophes are being caused by too much industrial development, which is increasing the advantage humans take over nature, and therefore ruining it. This is the environmentalist view on Humans in Nature, although in the article they bring up the Marxists, they believe that the problem between humans and nature is capitalism. The drive for profit in their opinion ignores absolutely everything but the greed for money, this leads to cheaper methods concerning the environment, where rivers and the earth is polluted and poison toxins are released into the air from factories. “Modern technology, as it is employed by capitalist industry, is destructive.”

I completely agreed with the stance taken by the article and how it has been separated into the environmentalists view and the Marxist view, I believe it is completely plausible and true, that money cause mankind to ignore everything but the need for power, money and control.

“Humans because of their unique abilities, control nature rather than are controlled by nature due to new technology, demand for space and capitalism. With new technologies in the 21^st century, humans are able to control nature.”  (A detailed Summary of human control of nature)

So it seems as if money and material objects have become more significant to humans that the world that they live in. it is as if Nature is just trampled upon if it’s in the way of money.

“People are in control of nature because they will stop at nothing to gain and rise on the corporate ladder. The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of the air, earth, rivers, and seas with dangerous and even lethal materials.”  (Rachel Carson) “The use of nature as a trash can is directly due to humans controlling nature.”

and now, what its uses?

In the same article I mentioned earlier by Pau D’Amato I found the name Frederick Engels who “shows a remarkable grasp of the process of human intervention into nature and its implications.”

He states how animals and humans can change their environment by acting on it, although animals do it through instinct and then humans consciously act on nature in order to “harness” its forces and materials. In short 

“The animal merely uses the environment and brings about changes in it simply by its presence, Man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it” 

(Engels) Engels describes it perfectly, humans manipulate its environment and take advantage of it. Humans don’t just take what they need, through their changes they strive to provide the necessary. It is completely irrelevant to them what the environments changes are. But Engels goes on to say;

"Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first."

I love what he says here, that in a way nature is fighting back, that we think we are getting what we want, the profits, the convenience, but humans with all their science and technology seem to neglect the long-term effects, and the long term effects might completely right off what was expected. 

"Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature--but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly."

So I'd like to know why?

First of all the earth is over populated by humans, I believe that is the first problem, there is too little in nature to accommodate for the human population. There is also the difference in involvement in nature between first world and second world countries, where the most developed economies consume resources much faster than the can regenerate. Then there are the developing countries with the rapid population growth which are experiencing poverty and poor living standards. Humans are at a point where they are exploiting nature to meet needs. (Hinrichsen. D, Robey. B)

So what is actually happening because of us?

What damage can be measured is the natural resources, which are under a great amount of pressure, which threatens public health and development. There are water shortages, soil exhaustion, deforestation, air and water pollution and the degradation of coastlines (Hinrichsen. D, Robey. B)

What is happening in the environment is that nature cannot handle whats being taken out and then being returned as pollution. It is starting to effect the health of humans, “Unclean water, along with poor sanitation, kills over 12 million people each year, most in developing countries. Air pollution kills nearly 3 million more. Heavy metals and other contaminants also cause widespread health problems.”

Populations are also growing faster than food supplies, this causes mass slaughters of animals, sometimes cruel, to provide for the ever growing populations.

Taking that into account, arable land is also becoming scarce because of deforestation and erosion. “Population pressures have degraded some 2 billion hectares of arable land — an area the size of Canada and the U.S.” (Hinrichsen. D, Robey. B)

The supply of freshwater is finite, but demand is soaring as population grows and use per capita rises. By 2025, when world population is projected to be 8 billion, 48 countries containing 3 billion people will face shortages.

High population densities and urban development pressure half of all coastal ecosystems. A tide of pollution is rising in the world’s seas. Ocean fisheries are being overexploited, and fish catches are down.

Nearly half of the world’s original forest cover has been lost, and each year another 16 million hectares are cut, bulldozed, or burned. Forests provide over US$400billion to the world economy annually and are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet, current demand for forest products may exceed the limit of sustainable consumption by 25%.

The earth’s surface is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, largely from burning fossil fuels. If the global temperature rises as projected, sea levels would rise by several meters, causing widespread flooding. Global warming also could cause droughts and disrupt agriculture.

“How people preserve or abuse the environment could largely determine whether living standards improve or deteriorate. Growing human numbers, urban expansion, and resource exploitation do not bode well for the future. Without practicing sustainable development, humanity faces a deteriorating environment and may even invite ecological disaster.” (Hinrichsen. D, Robey. B)