Is human dominance of nature the natural evolution?

Question

If so why should it be checked or curbed in the name of nature? Surely the developments (whether perceived to be positive or negative) and sophisication of the human lifestyle are turning the world into what it will be instead of keeping it what it used to be.

The negative externalities of development (eg. depletion of natural resource reserves, polution etc.) are natural in the sense that they follow on from the natural development of mankind to become more developed.

Surely efforts to stem human evolution are unnatural?

Discuss.

Answer 1

Hi,

We only partly dominate nature. We ourselves are influenced by nature (e.g. New crops developed to counter-act increase in drought, more sun-tan lotion to protect against increased sun exposure). Its a increasing cycle as we try to adapt to a environment we may have altered.

If left without the technology or means to run them, nature will quickly address the balance (bear in mind how important oil is and what will happen when its gone, or the build up of resistance to pesticides and antibiotics).

I don't think evolution can adapt quickly enough to the speed we are altering the environment, but none of us will be around to find out if this is true. ;)

Our dominance is like that of a plague, an epidemic and on an evolutionary scale we have not been around that long to claim superiority (compare the time of humans to that of dinosaurs).

The only thing that can make us superior is that we are aware of what damage we are causing, so can change it. Currently our development is based on a huge loan, one that we will be unable to afford when cashed in.

I think in Lovelock's book 'Gaia' he says that our extinction will go unnoticed and the Earth will continue on.

If human dominance is to be checked or curbed it is not in the name of nature, but for selfish reasons to save the human race from disaster.

Answer 2

Mankind has been fighting nature since it realized that if it sat in a cave it didn't get wet in the rain.
Of course the evolution of man is becoming un-natural. And so by making us evolve differently we are making everything else evolve differently, and of course, our meddling in other things, like cutting down the rainforests, killing off the dodo, and poaching elephants and rhinoceroses, has done many many un-natural thing in the course of evolution.
Did you know that the building of a dam in Egypt caused a snail that was not supposed to go near water to suddenly have to adapt to an artificial lake, and in doing so, a new virus was created that has so far sickened thousands of people?

Modern man is about as as natural as plastic. And the longer we're around, the less of everything else there will be.

Answer 3

One important thing to also consider is that perhaps humans deciding to limit the amount of pollution they release into nature is natural for us. It could be that having an entire environmentalist movement is natural. Also, keep in mind that attempts to limit resource depletion and limit pollution are not designed to solely benefit other animals, and surely not intended to somehow better a ball of rock floating through space; those who are supporting the limitation of negative externalities are often doing it in an attempt to better humanity. Simple actions like deforestation or pollution can lead to serious hazards to humanity such as landslides and dangerous smog. By better understanding how our actions affect the environment, including ourselves, we can predict how to keep humanity safe from preventable environmental hazards in the future.

Answer 4

I agree on some points, religion is tossed into a lot wars that are caused by human nature, but morals have nothing to do with religion. Common morals , like thou shalt not murder, existed wayyyy before religions popped up. But, writings like the bible listed those morals and added a few of their own ( ex: homosexuality is an abomination)

Answer 5

You make the assumption that humans are separate from nature. Despite Descartes legacy, the truth remains that we are part of nature. We are part of the system and our efforts to 'dominate' are only due to our large egos. We think we are better and special!
By wanting to dominate we are killing ourselves....the earth will go on once we've left! If humans do not learn to manage their activities and accept that this earth is not for them to dominate then they are just a nasty virus and this virus will soon be instinct.

Answer 6

protecting the environment is not about doing what's best for 'nature', it's about ensuring we have an environment that will support life. The idea of 'natural' is completely arbitrary, as it is, and can only be, conceptualised by humans.

Its not an issue of dominance, but management of resources. its like if you were stuck in a room for a fortnight with two weeks worth of food, it'd be better to eat it in sensible portions that gorge on one half and pee all over the other half on the first day

Answer 7

You're right that we do dominate nature, but we most definately did not evolve to do so. Humans evolved to live in small egalitarian bands that definately don't dominate nature: http://anthropik.com/2005/09/thesis-7-humans-are-best-adapted-to-band-life/. We only became dominant when we adopted agriculture, which led to power hungry leaders, hoarding of land, civilization, empires, epidemic diseases. The notion of ownership of land and surplus creates neverbefore experienced power dynamics, including institutionalized hierarchies and organized warfare.

You're wrong in that you assume it's natural for us to dominate nature, that we're simply following natural human evolution. We only started our trend of earth dominance about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture. Our modern subspecies (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) has existed for more than 100,000 years (possibly close to 200,000 years). Were we evolving nature dominating behaviour for 100,000 years until 10,000 years ago? Hell no. If you think it's natural for humans to "progress" to the point of dominating nature, then why did Native Americans and Australian Aborigines continue to live in balance with nature as recently as 150 years ago?

Civilization is a cancer on this earth. It's shamelessly killing her. We are living unnatural lives that we are maladapted to. Civilization is devastating the world and the human condition.

Answer 8

This argument is what's known as the naturalistic fallacy, also called the is-ought problem. Basically, just because something might be natural, doesn't mean it has to be this way.

We are intelligent creatures, whatever our origin. We should be able to rise above our evolutionary past and make decisions based on what's right now, for us and the planet, rather than on our supposed nature.

Answer 9

That is basically my opinion. People are a natural part of the environment and so anything they do is a natural part of nature. Hoover dam is not any less natural than a beaver dam, just bigger and more complex; just like a person is bigger and more complex than a bacteria.

Answer 10

We are another species enjoying the same planet , If you believe your self to be dominant then you run the risk of becoming a virus