Let Nature Take Care Of It

[Image 1] Original artwork, “Cell 2”—acrylic and india inks on watercolor canvas, 4”x4 1/2”.

The following entry was written during my university studies as a classical argument against prevailing, and in my opinion ironic, theories attempting to discern what responsibility, if any, humans have to “take care of nature” by attempting to mitigate climate change, population, and other supposed viral human actions of destruction on this planet we call home.

My argument is based on the conundrums I find in the theoretical views supporting human control over nature by those who profess nature to be their god, or at the very least, a force they cannot avoid and must reckon with, as many simultaneously argue that humans are above the simplistic and primitive belief in such things.

“Let Nature Take Care Of It,” or in other words, give nature her due, is the premise of my thesis, coupled with my observation of the absurdity of human notions of stewardship over the very framework that gave them life, that allows them to subsist from day to day, the mother, if you will, of us all, nature.

This is not an argument against intelligent design, nor is it an argument in favor of humanism. It is simply an ironic look at the ridiculous notion that one can both accept nature as one’s parent, while concurrently believing themselves to be superior to, or at the very least, separate from, their creator.

I acknowledge that this entry may contain philosophical ideas that have been presented by those who came before me. It is not my intention to steal another’s claim to the philosophical quandaries I’m presenting here. Yet, this paper’s reasoning was not meant as a rigorous academic study either, but was simply an opinion piece based on my own observations. What outside information informed these observations, I cannot completely say, although I acknowledge that, like all, I am impacted by those who came before me and I recognize here the many contributions others have made in helping me construct my current viewpoints and opinions.

As always, courteous and polite comments in favor or in disagreement may be posted below. Sources are cited at the end of this entry.

Manufacturing, Pollution, and Human Extinction: Let Nature Take Care of It

The word stewardship is an interesting philosophical choice when considering the plight of manufacturing and pollution and their possible contribution to human extinction on a global scale. Using such a word in phrases like, “for better stewardship of the earth’s resources,” (Hackett 31) suggests that, as humans, there is a strong belief that we are here to care for, influence, and even rule over the planet, or nature itself.

Yet, in that context, what are we implying? Do we suppose that we—humans and our creations—are not a natural part of this world, that, instead, we are alien to this planet, yet were appointed its custodians (by whom it is unclear), and that our impact is powerful enough to destroy nature because it is dependent on us?

Certainly, that is a delightful sentiment, but it is not at all based in scientific fact.

We are not nature’s sovereign. Nature, what science and many others consider the evolutionary parent of us all, is ours.

As humans are considered by science to be a result of nature, it stands to reason that everything we do, in whatever way we do it, including our consumer, manufacturing, and waste- processing habits, are of nature as well.

Therefore, if we agree that nature created us, that we are all here as a result of what science calls the “Big Bang,” or whatever current scientific explanation is at hand, and a natural evolutionary process begat us, then we must also accept that humans are not above natural law, but are, instead, working at all times within it.

To suggest we are not a part of nature and that we have the power to change nature, is to propose that we—the human family—are of something else entirely.

Hence, if we are of nature, and nature is our sovereign, we must conclude that, although humans—just one group out of many natural components—often feel responsible, the one, first and foremost, accountable for the world’s maintenance, survival, and cleanup, in its holistic form, is nature, and not its children.

Humans are a part of nature, by our own admission and scientific evidences. However, although we may reside, for now, at the top of the food chain, and feel very powerful and confident there, we do not control the expanse of the universe, the planet, or nature as a whole.

Humans, although capable of discovering and utilizing natural laws, do not create them. For example, there is no evidence that humans contributed, at all, to their own existence. They did not provide nature, like an apathetic donor, with the sperm to seed life. They have no claim to the contribution of their own existence.

In fact, apart from their simplistic notions of spontaneous evolution, they have yet to discover the man behind the curtain, so to speak, or a plausible reason for their own continuance and purpose, except their current existence, which is a weak argument, at best.

Nature is not a human triumph. But it could be said that mankind is nature’s greatest creation. Humans may alter nature in many ways, both negatively and positively. Yet, they are not creators in the strictest sense; discovery is not origination, reductionism is not authenticity, and revision is certainly not novelty. With or without human involvement, nature will survive as it has always done, and if needed, will reduce or eliminate its own threats, even if those threats were once its children.

Overpopulation, for example, is considered, by many, a global crisis and threat to the natural order, not a part of nature’s cyclical patterns.

However, when overpopulation of an animal species occurs, nature steps in and provides the solution: lack of food, disease, death, and migration. Once the overpopulation is proportionally balanced, the ecosystem is returned to another state of its natural cycle: a proper predator and prey ratio, abundant vegetation, and plenty of space for easy movement and reproduction to take place again—to grow again—and, consequently, be repeated.

But, what about the overpopulation of humans, how does nature handle that? Considering some examples throughout history, like the black plague, natural disasters, world wars, over-manufacturing, pollution, and so forth, not to mention more than a few near human extinction events, it would seem that nature has adequately managed human advancement and growth, keeping the cycle in motion and in check; and as nature is, seemingly, an impersonal, unbiased steward, much of the disease, destruction, and death, has been delivered with very little prejudice for race, gender, status, or age.

Yet, the over-population cycle seems well overdue as humans, like a plague of locusts, seem to be threatening nature’s resources. But time is nature’s child as well and nature will act in ways and means that often baffle us.

Regardless, this over-growth balancing process is natural, and as human’s are a piece of nature, their participation in it, like offering man-made solutions, is, although unnecessary, natural as well.

With our ever-expanding human population, and all of the circumstances that arise from fulfilling the needs and desires of such a massive group, human concern for fulfilling and managing necessities and wants, understandably increases.

We instinctively want to survive, for reasons we still cannot explain. Without natural resources, who will meet the demand, how will they meet them, and who will ultimately be responsible for improvement?

According to James Fallows, author of “China Makes, the World Takes,” each country must consider their own needs, circumstances, and goals, and adjust their individual approach accordingly. China, Fallows explains, needs jobs and a larger presence in the global economy to support their ever-growing population. To satisfy their needs, they built a large manufacturing infrastructure, and although they produce much of the world’s pollution while also producing most of the world’s consumer products, they are meeting their individual goals, while simultaneously helping other countries do the same.

America, on the other hand, has greatly reduced their pollution after their own industrial revolution by outsourcing manufacturing and finding methods and means to restrict pollutants. Yet, as they’ve reduced and restricted, many American’s are concerned with losing their global and local influence and growth (Fallows para. 99).

However, Fallows believes America’s affairs are not China’s concern, and China’s are not America’s. Everyone, in Fallows’ opinion, is responsible to take care of and think only of themselves. A very progressive idea indeed.

Despite what humans are doing for their own survival and fulfillment, the bigger question remains. If the human family, like a group of unsupervised finger-painting toddlers, makes a mess of nature, who is responsible for the clean-up?

Perhaps, the answer to this question is what frightens humans the most.

We suppose that if we poorly manage our expansion, nature will step in, like a frustrated parent, and manage it for us, and we won’t like nature’s approach: impartial, natural destruction, until balance is once again achieved.

But what if nature’s way is the only way.

Do we—the human family—have the power, or more importantly, the instincts to slow down or effectively control our growth?

In her stunningly visual documentary, Edward Burtynsky Manufactured Landscapes, Jennifer Baichwal paints a detailed picture of the world’s over-manufactured landscapes through the lens of photographer, Edward Burtynsky. With scene after scene of ravaged land, the aftermath of piles upon piles of voraciously consumed products, and the massive efforts to feed the insatiable human world with more, viewers can’t help but wonder how we’ll correct or tackle the, seemingly, impossible and catastrophic problems arising from, what appears to be, a reckless and careless obsession with growth in an every-man-for-himself (or herself, or themselves, or whatever we are calling ourselves these days) fashion, as Fallows advises.

Yet, are these concerns founded in fact or propaganda?

In the startling words of Chuck Palahnuik, is found another layer of this bizarre and prevailing human dilemma revealing our part in nature’s creative cycles: “If death meant just leaving the stage long enough to change costume and come back as a new character...Would you slow down? Or speed up?”

Is our, so-called, recklessness, reckless, or as nature intended?

Can we hold back the mounting tsunami of nature balancing itself out once again?

Growth is natural. Nature grows. Human and animal populations grow. We will continue to grow, and with that growth will come greater and greater need.

But destruction, in all of its forms, is natural as well. The process of accumulation, reduction, and renewal are, and have always been, intertwined and inevitable in some form or another, our own birth and death as the supreme example.

Is it possible for humans to correct or properly manage the over-growth of their creativity, or smooth out the wrinkles of it for the future?

Perhaps, over the short term, yes; over the long-term, no. It’s impossible to pause or sustain everlasting growth, and at some point, nature will clear the unnecessary effects of it for what is to come, whether we like that option or not.

It’s ironic, and even fascinating, that humans rush toward expansion, naively assuming they can avoid creation’s inevitable twin, elimination.

Perhaps, nature’s cycles are as innate and instinctual to us as the will to survive, and therefore it’s impossible to resist them, our natural curiosity getting the better of us, and perhaps, making us better overall.

An artist, for example, like Burtynsky, finds his canvas in the creation and the doom of, what we call, over-manufactured landscapes, but what nature calls normal, because it was created by us, and we are, ultimately, a part of nature. Yet, even in the destruction, Burtynsky’s voice is clearer to us as an artist, more recognizable, because of the contrast.

Fallows, on the other hand, observes cooperation, accountability, and economics in a new light, because he viewed nature at work, the light and the dark.

Baichwal immerses in the opposing textures nature has created, both emotional and visual, full of harsh reality and contextual purity, without which her work would have been shallow and meaningless.

We speed toward growth and destruction, it would seem, because we crave all of it, the big bang and the inescapable boom.

Even in destruction, like over-manufactured landscapes, we find art, we find value, and inspiration; we find our home in nature.

So, what are we afraid of?

Nature is in control and will govern its own—what it created—regardless of human involvement.

We naturally thrive in nature’s cycles, because we are a part of nature. Nature will be nature.

The results of our manufacturing, in progress and ruin, are natural. There is some comfort in the that thought.

Even if we intentionally interfere with—expedite or delay—the growth or the elimination of the natural process, it is the same, that is just nature doing its work; we are all nature, just doing its work.

Nature’s creative power will, spontaneously and characteristically, grow, reduce, and recycle itself without our, so-called, stewardship.

If you agree that nature is your creator, you also admit that you are less than, and even subject to, nature.

Yet, paradoxically, many fret over our human role in the natural cycle of things. If we are of nature, are we not accountable for our own destruction of it?

Wouldn’t it be better to join nature’s process willingly, than to reap, what we perceive to be, much harsher consequences in the future, like our own demise?

Certainly, we can. But our efforts are not greater than nature’s, we are not the totality of nature’s creations, and our exertions alone will not permanently alter nature’s determined course.

If nature chooses to permanently eliminate human existence through human action, that is the natural order of things.

What appear to us to be major attacks and catastrophic outcomes of our faults, is just nature doing what it does well, following its cyclical patterns.

Whether we do, or whether we don’t, the outcome will be the same.

Let us, instead, simply surrender to nature’s work and leave the clean-up and disposal of our temper-tantrums and finger-painting projects to nature, and instead, enjoy the ride.

Stewardship is a curious emotion for humans to feel for a dispassionate planet. In our modern, scientifically advanced, human culture that feeling is now stretching to an extreme.

There is an intellectual movement toward sovereign stewardship, or total control—god-like control—that is, somehow, exempt from nature, as if outsourced from another, other-worldly, locale.

Not only is that pursuit an extremely arrogant and self-aggrandizing presumption, but it is not supported by scientific fact at all.

One could argue that we are advancing far beyond nature, and that nature has finally relinquished control to a human plague, a virus too powerful to subdue, man. We finally reign supreme!

But, consider that the Greeks, the Romans, and the Egyptians, and consequently every fallen civilization, felt exactly the same way, prior to their fall—recycled by nature.

Certainly, through anthropological comparison our technology appears more advanced, and maybe it is. Yet, has our attitude changed?

If we still believe that we can outwit and subdue the very presence that gave us life, we only prove the cycle true, and are, therefore, less than the simple animals who submit so generously to the god who gave them life: nature.

As for our manufacturing, pollutive, and human extinction habits, rest assured, when its time and regardless of our puny efforts, nature will take care of us.

Works Cited

Baichwal, Jennifer. Edward Burtynsky: Manufactured Landscapes. Video. 2007.

Fallows, James. "China Makes, The World Takes." The Atlantic, Jul-Aug 2007. https://www. theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/china-makes-the-world-takes/305987/ (Links to an external site.)

Hackett, Sophie. “Far and Near: New Views of the Anthropocene.” Anthropocene. AGO in collaboration with National Gallery of Canada. Pp 13-33.

Palahnuik, Chuck. Quote. “22 of the Most Powerful Death and Dying Quotes Ever Written,” June 8, 2015, https://securitynationallife.com/22-of-the-most-powerful-death-dying- quotes-ever-written/.

Share this post