Class: IAH 206
Final draft due: 17 Sep 2001
essay 1 of 5
Source: school/arts/iah206/essay1.wpd
As we enter the twenty-first century, it is clear that many things
about our method of interacting with our environment are different than
in previous centuries, and that, in fact, the very philosophy of the man-nature
interaction may change again. Some look forward to these changes. Others
are fearful or condemnatory. In many cases, people implicitly or explicitly
argue, "[these technologies] are unnatural. [These things] may be useful...
but they represent a form of tinkering with Nature that is unwise." Since
this argument may appear in many places, it is important to critically
analyze it. I feel that this argument is the arbitrary reaction of one
philosophy against another, and does not by itself prove anything. Examining
perceptions of the natural from history and certain exemplary situations,
along with modern thinking on the subject, may illuminate the deeper issues
that lie behind this argument.
Aboriginal humanity seems to have had various religious systems designated broadly as "nature-worship". Objects in nature, places, and the spirits of friends or relatives (living or dead) were to be worshiped, feared, and appeased. For instance, a native American might leave an offering to the soul of a deer he had hunted. Other societies would gather in groves or caves to celebrate religious ceremonies.
In agrarian and feudal societies, more complex and technical religious systems were developed. They might be designated "Polytheism", "Monotheism", and "Universalism". For the purposes of this discussion, let us define these terms as follows: Monotheism identifies exactly one transcendent supernatural being, who, by his own nature, is the only creator of Nature, is good, and who (together with his son, creations, adopted sons, etc.) must eventually triumph over evil. Polytheism identifies multiple supernatural beings who each exercise arbitrary control over Nature, and all of whom may be good or evil and triumphant or banished depending on random factors such as the phase of the moon and which deity has the most priests and temples. Universalism identifies no supernatural being separate from Nature itself, but affirms that Nature is, in the end, good. While "atheism", "devil-worship", "fatalism" and "hedonism" are also logically valid philosophies, they take less time to explain, present fewer leads for philosophical study, and seem not to have guided the actions of many people worthy of emulation. At any rate, religious hierarchies played an important factor in world government for several thousand years.
As a trivial example of how fundamental "nature" is in religious discourse, different religions have, over time, prescribed different hair-grooming standards. The early-Christian apostle Paul taught, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (1 Cor. 11:14) Jewish men have long worn a skull-cap to cover the hair while praying. On the other hand, Sikh men believe that the hair is sacred, and that to cut it (or let it be dirty) would be to defile it. When in public places, they wear a turban to protect their hair from anything unclean. Their respect for God-created nature also leads them to refrain from eating any sort of meat.
During the industrial revolution, some philosophies were brought forth which identified 'the good' with certain goals that could be achieved by economic decisions. For example, "the Puritan Ethic" taught that if a man was a hard worker then he was saved, because that was his nature. As another example, Marxism taught that historical processes would, by their nature, lead to a future society in which the proletariat was prosperous and exercised power. In other words, the goodness of nature would lead to the desired outcome, if the conditions were right. These historical processes were causing major changes. Graham writes "The result was that traditional political and social structures had little effectiveness for the majority of people who now lived in towns and cities; they neither reflected nor offered control over the lives most people led." He goes on to explain that "the ideas reflected rather than brought about the change." (30)
At the same time, the Romantic movement in art and literature sprang up. While Mary Shelley's writing was technically from the Gothic era, she drew heavily on the Romantic tradition. She introduced the idea of a monster that was dangerous not just because it was powerful but because it was unnatural, and because its creator should not have made it. At the same time, she saw great beauty in nature, as did other writers. The American writer Thoreau wrote a book about his daily experiences living on a self-sufficient small farm over a period of years, and painters drew pictures of majestic landscapes, complete with mountains, waterfalls, lightning and hyenas. Men sought to understand the aboriginal again, although not yet his oneness with nature but only his worship of nature.
The first half of the twentieth century was occupied in trying to work out the social, economic and political implications of the industrial revolution. The world had two worldwide wars; the United States suffered an economic depression; marxist-inspired uprisings in many countries caused the early deaths of millions of people and entire races. By the 1950s, people in some countries finally had time again to evaluate the consequences of industrialism, which had just barely been glimpsed even in the 1880s. People realized, for instance, that they might have produced enough greenhouse gases to trigger a global climate-change that would soon make most of the world's cities unlivable. They also feared the imminent threat of nuclear war.
Against this backdrop, it is easy to tie into the inherited cultural consciousness by identifying something as "unnatural" and, at the same time, implying that it is against the will of God to the Monotheists, implying that it wouldn't normally result from Nature to the Universalists, and implying that it is ugly and devoid of beauty to those who follow the Romantic tradition. However, even the word "natural" itself is slippery and defies definition. We seek for ways of raising "natural" and "organic" grains, yet maize and wheat are themselves artificial species which would be found only in a small area of the world, if at all, had early men not domesticated and enhanced them.
Donna Haraway is one thinker who has struggled with the many issues that genetic manipulation raises. She has also seen that word-usages in post-modern thought often, sometimes regrettably, draw upon previous connotations. "It is a mistake in this context to forget that anxiety over the pollution of lineages is at the origin of racist discourse in European cultures. ... I cannot help but hear in the biotechnology debates the unintended tones of fear of the alien and suspicion of the mixed."
I also worry that, in the debates over modern technology, many people
fear change and use the word "unnatural", as well as others, to draw unwarranted
assumptions into the debate. There are cases where "tinkering" with nature
can have major unintended consequence, just as a man tinkering with the
works at a hydroelectric dam could cause a flood in the valley below. However,
these consequences arise not because it is evil to play with nature but
because Nature herself is both extremely powerful and morally neutral.
Man has always tried to subdue Nature and hold her at bay. This becomes
easier as we understand her better, so I claim that technology is perfectly
natural.