The following essay was written in response to the Shell-Economist query: Do we need nature?
 
Yes, I could have written a lot more, but they had a word limit!
I know, it's a bit long... but print it out and read at your leisure.

 
Let's do away with Nature and worship the gods of technology -- why not?
 
 
  Our control over Nature gives us medicines, shelter in otherwise inhospitable climates and ample food supply in a world that threatens us with new outbreaks of diseases such as the West Nile virus or Aids, attacks by mountain lions as seen in California and Canada and famine caused by extraordinary drought in numerous places. In this context, the posed question: "do we need nature?" does not seem out of place.
     
  However, in our surprisingly narrow human-centric perspective of the world, we fail to recognize that the entire global ecosystem is interconnected and interdependent. We breathe air moderated by cooling and heating units to make our lives comfortable.  Yet, that same air is polluted by our machines of progress and health administrators tell us to avoid the outdoor air during hot summer days.  We vaccinate our bodies to protect ourselves from epidemics.  Yet, we subvert our natural immune systems to the point that they no longer function properly, resulting in major increases in autoimmune disorders, allergies and a desperate need for more potent antibiotics.  We improve our farm yields with machinery, fertilizers and pesticides.  Yet, we ignore how chemicals obliterate essential, natural ecosystems and poison our bodies. Little attention is paid to the consequences of our technological control of Nature.  When these technologies are abused, water is dangerously contaminated, complex and delicate biodiversity disappears and unhealthy hormones and toxins are passed up the food chain onto our dinner plates. 
     
  We must acknowledge that humanity is part of Nature -- not apart from or superior to Nature.  In our modern age when most First World citizens live in stylized homes set on urban blocks, drive to work protected by glass and steel over asphalt and concrete and spend days inside corporate boxes catching only desperate glimpses of the outside through windows, anyone's concept of Nature is suspect.  The idea of Nature is complex and often quite subjective, but our placement within Nature is undeniable.  For simplicity, let us accept my personal definition of Nature: Nature is life -- creation, the universe -- not artificially manufactured product out of synchronization with the natural order of the world.  Of course, trees and rocks are Nature, but so are chemicals, famine and war; Plastics and nuclear waste are not. Nature is not artificiality that could not possibly exist without our forcing it into being. While our disconnection from Nature can be traced to several major events including the inventions of written text and agriculture and the birth of monotheistic religions, it is the development of modern science that marks the most dramatic shift in humanity's relationship to Nature.  Today, we are guided by a Newton-Bacon-Descartes trilogy that falsely implies our superiority over Nature advancing our conceptual removal from and subsequent subjugation of Nature.  Our culture specifically teaches us to ignore Nature and the natural—we can overcome everything through science.
 
  When we examine our relationship with Nature in this context, we begin to recognize the absurdity of the question, "do we need nature?" and this question demonstrates a major flaw in our thinking.  To deny that we need Nature is to deny that we are affected, responsible and vulnerable.  Our cultural disconnection from Nature is, in fact, the root of many of societies' major problems and we must recognize our impact upon the ecosystem for our very survival.  When we ignore the interconnectivity of all life -- our interdependence on everything else -- we poison our own water, air and food while living in a manner beyond an ecosystem's sustainable limits.  We are in the midst of a nearly unrecognized environmental crisis.  Global warming is causing weather extremes, increases in disastrous storms and drought.  Melting glaciers raise sea levels and temperatures.  Infectious disease patterns shift and arable farmland productivity drops.  These seemingly subtle changes in our eco-system kill off major parts of the food chain and dramatically impact our own food supply.  Urban and industrial sprawl eats away at our unadulterated land, leaving us with seas of heat trapping asphalt; we are being fed mass amounts of genetically engineered food with no knowledge of the potential harm; and biologists believe we are in the midst of a mass extinction caused by our impact on the global ecosystem. Potable water is in short supply for much of the world.  Even in the United States, rationing has become common.  The shortsighted abuse of aquifers permanently salinates drinking water, while industrial pollution makes much of what remains questionable at best.  While we may be able to ignore Nature, we are far from immune to the consequences of our actions.
     
  Wars have been fought for less.
 
  Certainly, seeking control over one's environment is an innate human trait. If humanity is part of Nature, then, some will argue, man's actions are natural.  However, this conclusion does not justify the destruction of an environment or mean that an out-of-balance relationship with Nature is wise. There are numerous examples of historic and contemporary connected-to-Nature cultures that have lived in harmony with their environments but those groups have been displaced or exterminated when confronted by our own domination mindset.  To argue that since humanity is Nature, we are not a threat to Nature, is to absolve ourselves of responsibility.  This attitude removes the imperative to act when faced with such things as mass extinction, genocide or a neighbor's polluted water. 
     
  Despite our self-image as noble and benevolent, an objective analysis of our behavior would suggest that we be likened to a cancer that spreads across the globe consuming all in its path.  We are the progeny of a tradition of exploitation.  Rome rose and fell on the richness and exhaustion of its resources.  The expansion of the British Empire was motivated by the collapse of Europe's natural resources.  We must face the duality of our providence: our philosophical and spiritual heritage charges us to be the caretakers of all that is around us while in actuality we are the benefactors of a tradition of abuse of people and land.  To argue that we are separate from Nature, that we do not need Nature, hints at an underlying agenda that is a mechanism to personal advantage.
     
  Why have the realities of global warming been recognized by the entire industrialized world but the United States?  Why have the automobile manufacturers prevented legislation requiring improved fuel economy?  Why has oil dependence been encouraged and solar power been resisted?  Because it is in someone's economic interest.
 
  Our culture combines governmental, religious and technological power structures with self-serving agendas that perpetuate a denial of our impact and preempt a constructive concern for our fate.  Our society acts for short-term self-interest rather than long-term benefit because it is in the economic interest of those in power.  While our free market, capitalist system offers many significant benefits, its fatal flaws lay in corporate and economic systems' disconnect from conscience and the dubious interrelationship between corporations and legislators.  Without unprejudiced oversight by government structures meant to protect people, preserve equity and promote opportunity, society will continue to devolve into greater disconnect from Nature and further threaten us.  Guided by this disconnected-from-Nature ethos, unsound actions (such as dumping toxins in a river rather than safe disposal and treatment because it is cheaper) will remain acceptable. This only make sense from a selfish and ignorant perspective that allows us to rationalize our behavior based upon personal comfort, power and money. With a return to a respect for all life and a harmonious relationship to our ecosystem, we would return to sustainable living.  Plagues like pollution, over population and hunger would be resolved.  To truly live happy, healthy and fulfilling lives, we must accept our place within the interconnected globe and recognize the consequences of our actions.
     
  Many look to the false god of technology for salvation from our self-induced problems: we will design some chemical that removes chlorofluorocarbons from the ozone layer, develop better methods of extracting oil and natural gas from the earth, discover new sources of energy to power our industries, or invent technologies that alter what appears to be sustainable.  However, it is human control of Nature and abuse of unsound technology that is the direct cause of our problems, not the solution.  Control over Nature is counterproductive. Solutions like nuclear power as an answer to pollution or genetically modified foods as an answer to world hunger are dangerous, laced with multiple problems that are little recognized or discussed.  In the blink of an eye, a nuclear disaster will devastate millions: just look to Chernobyl.  Proponents argue that nuclear energy is inexpensive, efficient and safe while ignoring the realities: contractors cut corners to save money; there are unpredictable flaws in logic and design; terrorism, mistakes and accidents will happen. As for the waste, there is no safe and sane treatment.  Storing onsite, a short-term solution at best, invites disaster.  Transportation by train and truck though our cities is not much better considering the frequency of accidents.  Storage in a Nevada mountain may sound good to you -- if you don't live in Nevada -- but we will always have earthquakes, natural disasters and things that we can neither imagine or prepare for. The consequences can be grave.
 
  These types of solutions are proverbial Band-Aids applied to tumors that result from an errant philosophical crisis.  We cannot pin hopes on as yet unimagined solutions that may or may not materialize when the causes are deeper and sound solutions are much more complex.  It is imperative that we change, that we begin an unbiased analysis of our relationship to Nature and begin to recognize ourselves as an intricate part of Nature in order for us to survive and thrive.  This change will require a paradigm shift in public policy, economics and society.
           
  Some of the difficult decisions must begin with politics.  We must remove the influence of private money from public policy; corporate contributions to government and legislators must be outlawed.  When officials are beholden to contributors rather than the public, decisions become questionable and often benefit few at the expense of the majority.  In order for this to work, many adjustments must occur, including a restructuring of campaign financing through public funding, the development of open debate and a system of free and equal media coverage.  We must also eliminate the common practice of attaching riders to federal legislation.  We must simplify the process: a law passed must be exactly what it claims to be.  Secret and last minute projects or grants that benefit special interests or corporations cannot be allowed.  Legislation must live or die on its own merits and we must return transparency to government.
 
  Corporations must be guided by humanitarianism and conscience and be truly held accountable for their actions.  We must have fair governmental regulation and stricter anti-monopoly regulations.  When one entity controls the media, food production and energy supply, consumers always lose.  The lure of cheap products is often a transitory promise once competition is eliminated and it camouflages the loss of variety and choice and the true costs to society.  Indeed, corporations must bear the real costs of their practices rather than shifting the burden to government. The public pays the price when the environment is polluted, workers are not paid a livable wage, medical coverage is not provided or the single-minded drive for profits supercedes all else.
 
  The required societal changes are profound.  Attitudes of altruism must prevail over self-service and personal comfort.  We must willingly examine the impact of our actions and technologies while making better choices and more effort.  By re-instilling a respect for all life, and recognizing our need for Nature, we can return to an ethic of advancement for the common good and preserve the biodiversity that the global ecosystem requires to prosper.  It is essential for our survival. 
 
  Question your own hesitation to move forward.
 
Tim Gaudreau
855 Islington St #109