The nature of Nature

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.Modern culture, economies and global health has a growing dependence on the diverse resources found within world environments. I think it is important to have a clear understanding and definition of what is meant by Nature.

People impose their personal values in defining Nature and identify those interests as the right thing to do. This creates tensions between groups who have different experiences and understandings of the meaning of life.

These are examples of how the same scientific knowledge is used for two different purposes. Each one carries distinct social, political and environmental consequences. This leads to the idea of Nature explored relative to our universal moral obligations and the fundamental values that people share.

The basic conclusion is that the definition of Nature is inherently subjective. If that is the case, judicious compromises must be made when making decisions about competing interests. Consequently, the question of whether we need Nature becomes one of our relationship within it: our common needs, aims and moral responsibilities.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Pot marigold (Calendula officinalis) flower

Au Natural

How much do we really know about Nature? What is Nature?

Are any or all of these nature?

Nearly every time I hear any sort of discussion about ‘Nature,’ people already have an emotionally colored, and own emphatic understanding of the big N word. I say to my friends:

These are not easy questions to resolve. Should we:

These question are not for me to decide. I just have opinions, ideas, preferences, and most importantly interests and values that lead me to believe one thing or another.

What I do know is that our modern usage of Nature is greatly misconstrued and whether we need Nature or not is a non-issue. After all, humans are inherently part of Nature, a thin slice of its all-embracing totality.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. The important question is not whether we need Nature, but how we are to live with it.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Nature and human critters

Let me say it again: it’s not a question of needing Nature. It is a question of our relationship with everything within nature.

We are the most essential component of the equation. Without us, the oceans would carry on with their business. Mountains and the terrestrial land masses would carry on. A large spectrum of biological life would struggle against each other and physical forces to eek out an existence and survive in the face of the uncertainties of the coming day.

With humanity in the equation, we are just another one of those critters, (albeit a potent one) within the spectrum. We are trying our best to live and maximize everything that will allow us to do so successfully.

The only difference with us, the rocks, and the diverse swarm of insects living in the rain forests is: our extensive ability to gather and communicate knowledge, to reason, and to use our past experiences to evaluate the risks and rewards of future decisions.

Ebola virus, McDonalds, and the deep blue sea

Plants don’t plan ahead and seafloors don’t strategize. But the CEOs of multinational companies do, and often do a good job at it. If the Ebola virus had a market strategy as good as McDonalds, let’s face it, we would all be dead, and rather quickly.

In the past month, can you truly admit to never eating at McDonalds or drinking Coca-Cola? And if for some bizarre reason, the sea floor had ambitions to increase its share of the world’s surface area, our prospects for a dry social order wouldn’t be so good.

Whimsical as these sound, this is all to make a point: Whether physical, chemical, biological or cosmological, humans are not exclusive of Nature. We are fully limited by Nature’s laws.

This shouldn’t come as news to anyone. But this should: unlike inanimate objects, the way that we interact with our environment carries moral implications.

In other words, Nature begins and ends where we make decisions that create moral consequences. Beyond that, I argue that any decisions we make to change, use, or preserve our natural resources is not a question of Nature. Those decisions are based on special interests set by our personal value systems.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Inside a Chicken Farm

[This photo used for generic illustrative purposes only]

Nature and superbreeding

How does this relate to real world situations? Let’s think about two examples in Nature with respect to the above assertion. In the first example, scientists discover and apply the mechanism for hormones to make chickens lay eggs.

This discovery is made public and a company exploits the information. The company gains a competitive advantage by feeding chickens supplemental hormones. More output and productivity from the hens means more money for the egg farm.

In a short time, the company refines the precise hormone dosage and hones its farming practices. The hens lay ten eggs a day without fertilization, compared to one egg per day that hens lay normally.

Is there anything unnatural about this process? As far as we know, no other organism throughout the history of forever has been able to induce a different species to artificially lay eggs for its nutritional benefit.

This practice certainly would not adhere to the natural course of things insofar as it had never been done before. But is there anything wrong with that?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Dog and a piglet {photo: Osvaldo Pires}

The ethics of going ’Natural’

An ethicist would say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with finding, exploiting and applying knowledge if it doesn’t compromise the rights of the things we value.

As a society, if we accept exploiting chickens for their eggs, then there is really no difference between:

Do you believe that a very large farm with many conventional chickens is more ‘natural’ than a small farm with more productive egg-laying chickens?

The result is the same: a lot of eggs to sell at the market.

What’s Nature got to do with it?

Of course each of the three methods described above has different environmental and circumstantial consequences beyond just producing eggs. For instance :

Each option has its own risks and rewards. In the end, there is no universal pretext for assigning any option as being more natural.

It becomes a question of preference, resource availability and limitations as well as other circumstantial considerations that determine which option is more feasible.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. This has nothing to do with nature.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Milestones of Medicine {second of six sculptures of the Berliner Walk of Ideas}

But the following does. Consider another example where scientists discover and establish the mechanism by which hormones cause the regulation of blood sugar levels in humans.

With the identification of the hormone insulin, industries set out to provide it as a therapy to diabetic patients whose lifestyles would otherwise be severely compromised.

One approach of procuring insulin is to derive it from the pancreas of slaughtered animals like pigs. This serves as a crude source for the hormone which can subsequently be further purified for patient use.

Another alternative is to genetically-engineer bacteria to synthetically generate and purify large amounts of insulin for humans. This approach would be more economical and yield a more potent and medically compatible form of the hormone.

Again, like the egg example, either method would result in the same ends: procuring insulin for clinical use.

And each route would have its own set of environmental or practical consequences. As far as we know, no other organism throughout the history of forever has been able to harvest from or induce another organism of a different species to artificially synthesize a hormone for its own medical benefit.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Glacier National Park {St. Mary Lake with Wildgoose Island in center}

The value of Nature

The difference between the insulin and eggs examples is one thing: our moral obligation to procure the hormone through either method. The goal is to alleviate the condition of people who suffer from diabetes.

We are in no position to causally ignore the knowledge on insulin function nor is anyone justified in obstructing its use as a treatment just because it has never been done before.

A lot of things have never been done before. That is what makes being alive interesting and exciting.

And while we are alive, doing what is necessary to maintain our ability to live healthy, grow, and experience our world is the most natural thing we can ever do.

Likewise, a lot of things have never been done before, and should never be done if they compromise those primary needs and objectives.

So ask yourself what you value the next time you experience:

Is that what anyone should value? The answer to this questions will be the same — whether or not it is the natural thing to do.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.Solomon Nabatiyan, Ph.D.
Columnist
Secretary of Innovation
“In imagination & creativity we trust…”

https://twitter.com/#!/Sec_Innovation/status/149603098313236482

Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.

If you enjoyed this column, please subscribe to our Email list

© Copyright 2011 Secretary of Innovation, All rights reserved