Do we have the right to manipulate and destory nature?

[Quinlan]

We are nature, we can do what we want.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house,
"Hey! What gives you the right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, Man, you're some kinda sinner"

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't care about rights. I am interested in reasons and justifications as they relate to consequences. That being said, I think the consequence of destroying what is generally referred to as "nature" would constitute our own demise, which essentially makes it the ultimate bad idea, no?

 

[Sacrator]

Thought i would post this for the people who didnt know about these estimations yet. This isnt even touching whats going to happen to ocean life.

Climate change is expected to drive a quarter of all land animals and plants into extinction. (more than 1 million species)

Irreversibly more than one in ten of all plants and animals today will become extinct because of global warming gases already released into the atmosphere.

Scientists estimate if mankind continues to burn oil, coal and gas at the current rate, up to one third of all life forms will be doomed by 2050.

Scientists estimate that if current deforestation rates continue that all the rainforests will be destroyed by the year 2060.

 

[Kanamori]

The problem with all the eco arguments that I'ver heard is: humans are are totally natural... what's not to be expected with what we do, how is it different than earth's history before us? We are extensions of nature. I totally agree that our own future, and earth's as a part of that, is something that we should look into, but not to be harsh, that may not be necessarily include everything that's ever been here with us. Evolution happens... all of our reactions are a part of that and whatever happens is evolution.

 

[wildcat]

I am not trying to push any type of political anything here. I want to ask a fundamental question about the relationship between humans and nature.
I want anyone reading this to really think about what we have done as a species to nature. It obviously stands apart from anything else as unique to humans and appalling. We have exploited and manipulated nature to the point of the planet being in a state of emergency right now. When I speak of the planet I am talking of the earth as a singular organism. We are part of this. Our environments are toxic: the air, the water, the food. Everything is processed, tampered with and degraded for the sake of material satisfaction and our contemporary, overstimulated culture. What we have done for our benefit at the cost of destroying ecosystems is unbearable to think about. Not only has it cost the lives of countless animals and humans alike, we are annihilating EVERYTHING that matters. With modern, modified food have come the multitude of modern medical problems (One of countless examples). This is serious because fundamentally we are animals. We have certain needs: food, shelter, sex/love ALL of these things have been deeply, horribly affected by us not being connected with nature. We are part of it. We are not above it. It is everything. Next time you are outside, look at the infrastructure man has built, next to nature. Nature (read:life) grows through the cracks in the cement and birds chirp in the trees next to the factories we have built. That sharp contrast is unnerving.

What inside of us lets us do this to our world? I just cannot comprehend WHY millions have deemed it o.k. to have such disregard for the thing that brought them into this world, without it you would have nothing. Nature is the ultimate work of art that you LIVE in. It is all around you. Going against this is to destroy yourself, the very thing you are. People have grown to hate nature, to think it disgusting and crude. To put themselves in sterile, man-made, lifeless constructions. Nature is energy, it is life.

Our man-made world has created all of our problems. Almost everything created by man has had a short term gain and a long term, deeper disturbing consequence. People work all day at jobs they hate to come home to disconnected families who eat their processed, chemical laden and mass produced food while sitting in front of the television being fed a false reality and being subconsciously indoctrinated with symbolic brainwashing. The whole system fits together to keep everyone feeling a void in their lives and the need to keep filling it with other man-made things. The machine feeds itself.

How can there be any genuine or truthful in a world abundant with falsehoods?

I believe ultimately nature is more powerful than we, and could easily reclaim everything.

Why have we evolved, or rather devolved, to be this way? Why our species?

I know these questions are ultimately unanswerable. But why is there a deaf ear and blind eye turned towards this? Why isn't there mass outcry? Is it not hitting you over the head at this point? Has this cycle not gone on long enough? What inside of us is wanting to kill ourselves subconsciously as fast and painfully as possible?

I urge everyone to watch this. It is simple and beautifully well put. Nothing more can be said...

YouTube - Alan
Watts: A Conversation with Myself - Part 1

The masses cannot govern themselves?
Maybe not.

Plebiscite freed the masses?
Maybe not.

Why?

 

[Nyx]

I don't care about rights. I am interested in reasons and justifications as they relate to consequences. That being said, I think the consequence of destroying what is generally referred to as "nature" would constitute our own demise, which essentially makes it the ultimate bad idea, no?

gaaaaaah. I should have worded the title/thread better. I agree with everyone in regards to the reasons/justifications and consequences being of more importance. In fact I'm a little surprised I worded it that way. I do not know why I choose the word "rights" because there is no way to determine these "rights".

Anyway, we are animals, and part of evolution, yes. But how do we know where the line is? I mean, it is impossible to know if there is any unified creative force/something behind it all, right? Right now I am grappling with either nihilism or true mysticism. They both could be argued to make sense based on principles/ assumptions about the way things work. Or at least the way humans experience it. I usually tend towards mysticism, because let us be honest, it is more comforting. Looking at the world from a nihilistic perspective makes the world an unbearable place, and suicide seems like the only answer. But, from a mystical perspective, life just is and you are part of the whole. There is meaning. I think you can derive some meaning from yourself at least. You as a being, in the simple fact that you have something. You have consciousness and unconsciousness. You are part of this. Maybe this is the Feeling side of me coming out, but I cannot see justification for what we have done to ourselves as a species. Humans are not like other animals. We are the only animals that try to figure ourselves out, along with philosophical and scientific things. I think since we have that ability to do that, we should take into consideration what we are doing to the planet; it could be a huge lesson to us all, more so than the natural course of evolution. I suppose it is part to our evolution/devolution as a species. We must learn how to use nature without there being extreme repercussions. Since we differ from other animals we need to figure out our rightful place in this world.

 

[Tiltyred]

I've posted this before, but here it is again--

The epidermis of the skin is ecologically like a pond surface or a forest soil, not a shell so much as a delicate interpenetration. It reveals the self ennobled and extended rather than threatened as part of the landscape and the ecosystem, because the beauty and complexity of nature are continuous with ourselves. .... If nature is not a prison and earth a shoddy way-station, we must find the faith and force to affirm its metabolism as our own -- or rather, our own as part of it. To do so means nothing less than a shift in our whole frame of reference and our attitude toward life itself, a wider perception of the landscape as a creative, harmonious being where relationships of things are as real as the things. Without losing our sense of a great human destiny and without intellectual surrender, we must affirm that the world is a being, a part of our own body.

From "Ecology And Man -- A Viewpoint,"
an essay by Paul Shepard


Some of the things we do are heinous, and I can't understand why we persist. I think we've completely lost our minds.

 

[entropie]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJZnejcp-qo"].[/YOUTUBE]

Dont get me wrong, I love nature, I really do ! But nature built so much trees already, it's time to retaliate !

 

[Willfrey]

People work all day at jobs they hate to come home to disconnected families who eat their processed, chemical laden and mass produced food while sitting in front of the television being fed a false reality and being subconsciously indoctrinated with symbolic brainwashing. The whole system fits together to keep everyone feeling a void in their lives and the need to keep filling it with other man-made things. The machine feeds itself.

Really you lost me here, I appreciate your strong feelings about the topic but honestly, when you start telling people they are brainwashed and their food is laced with evil chemicals and we're all walking zombie abominations made by machines, etc, etc, it really makes you sound a bit kooky.

I believe it has already been expressed in this thread, but things will continue along their present course until it is no longer profitable, and I don't think there is much any of us can do about it.

Also why does everybody bash on processed/treated foods, or genetically modified crops? I bet if you had stomach cancer you'd be singing a different tune.

Dont get me wrong, I love nature, I really do ! But nature built so much trees already, it's time to retaliate !

But against an Atlas?????

 

[entropie]

But against an Atlas?????

Yea thats gonna be tough. 100 ton warmachine of the cumulated power of nature ! But together we're strong, we'll just jump that natural beast with pickaxes and hammer on his feet till it gets crazy from the ticklings

 

[Fluffywolf]

Do we have the right to say what is nature and what isn't?

I'm kinda stuck on that, don't really feel comfortable answering this topic without feeling confident about this question.

 

[nonsequitur]

"Rights" are artificial, human constructs born of the French Enlightenment and based on Christian values. They are not arbitrary, value-less or God-defined. Funny how most people seem to forget that.

Therefore the only ones stopping us from strip-mining Earth are ourselves. There is no external standard to hold ourselves to.

 

[Liminality]

" The problem with all the eco arguments that I'ver heard is: humans are are totally natural... what's not to be expected with what we do, how is it different than earth's history before us?...Evolution happens... all of our reactions are a part of that and whatever happens is evolution. "

But part of human nature is the ability to reason, reason gives way to a sense of right a wrong. On one hand we're capable of destroying the world due to our ability to create and consume. What ever happens maybe a part of evolution, but if we have the ability to reason, and reason that destroying the world is bad, then the argument that our actions are just another natural change/progression in the world (evolution) makes little sense to me.

Also like others have said: manipulating and destroying nature/evolution, whateve you want to call it, is eventually gonna end with us unable to survive, with is rather counterproductive.

Then again who says there's any reason for anything, and so any point in trying to be 'good' or productive...that there's any product we should aim for.

Regarding the suggestion that because obligation is a human construct and so renderd moot:

Even if they (Rights) are human constructs, if we choose to live by them in most other aspects of life then we ought to apply it to all things.

If you believe there's reason to object against something, and live according to a sense of right and wrong, whatever that may be, then it's just plain illogical in my eyes to say there's no reason to try and look after our world, just because obligation is somthing we made up.

No offence meant to anyone .

 

[nonsequitur]

But part of human nature is the ability to reason, reason gives way to a sense of right a wrong. On one hand we're capable of destroying the world due to our ability to create and consume. What ever happens maybe a part of evolution, but if we have the ability to reason, and reason that destroying the world is bad, then the argument that our actions are just another natural change/progression in the world (evolution) makes little sense to me.

No. Right and wrong are derived from values. Reasons are a posteriori justifications for those values.

Regarding the suggestion that because obligation is a human construct and so renderd moot:

Even if they (Rights) are human constructs, if we choose to live by them in most other aspects of life then we ought to apply it to all things.

If you believe there's reason to object against something, and live according to a sense of right and wrong, whatever that may be, then it's just plain illogical in my eyes to say there's no reason to try and look after our world, just because obligation is somthing we made up.

I never said that obligation is a human construct, that is a straw man argument. I said that the concept of "rights" is a human construct. "Rights" imply that there is an absolute right or wrong regardless of circumstance, and is spelled out in a bureaucratic manner in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a specific term that has nothing to do with what is being argued here. I merely pointed out that the idea of "right" to destroy the environment is ridiculous, and that it should not be used here because there is no such "right" in the declaration. Also, I should point out that not every country signed that particular bill anyway. Therefore it is hardly "universal".

Obligation is not the same as "rights". I am tired of the word "rights" being used in an inaccurate and context-free way by liberals who claim to be "logical" to justify their own values. Obligations are born from values. To address problems like this one it is necessary to enunciate all the values/perspectives being held instead of claiming that a particular value is universal and imposing it on other people.