DR. GRAEME DONOVAN
Dr. Graeme Donovan teaches at West Virginia University in International Development. He has worked on agricultural and rural development for more than thirty years. He is particularly interested in agricultural technologies, their evolution through history, and their contributions to increasing human productivity and improving use of natural resources. In the past five years his teaching has emphasized major issues for world development, among them the status of women, population and food production, global warming, bio-technology, and globalization of trade.
?There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity?It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.?
– Augustine
What is this ?nature? whose alteration we are questioning? Among several definitions offered by Webster?s Dictionary, two are attractive in this context:
(a) the external world in its entirety; and
(b) the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.
It is important to note that these definitions comprehend both living and non-living matter.
The first definition implies that the questioner stands outside, or is ?external? to ?nature.? We will argue, however, that in no respects are we, homo sapiens, the questioners, outside of ?nature.? The thoughts, aspirations, ambitions, and inventions of the human brain are all inherent in ?nature,? part of the natural order. We have no grounds, in other words, for describing any thought or action of humans as ?un-natural.?
If we alter nature, it is an inside job.
Humans have altered nature since the beginning of human history: through tool-making; construction; domestication of animals; invention of agriculture; use of fire as a tool to shape landscapes; domestication of plants and their continuous improvement as crops; and a non-stop, swelling stream of inventions. We have also altered ourselves by constructing civilizations and engaging in the arts. Our innovations in art have sometimes imitated nature, depicting it with exactitude and awe, and other times departed widely from it, creating new realities. We have found our way to altered states of consciousness, and used sophisticated means to alter our own life spans as well as those of our fellow creatures. We have devised complex tools of war, the more effectively to annihilate and destroy; we have invented psychotherapy and gene therapy; we have conceptualized and used cosmetic surgery; and in the future we will alter even wildlife by clever genetic manipulation, which allows the crossing of species boundaries.
Our alteration of nature, moreover, is not unique. Other parts of nature also alter still other parts of nature, and have done so throughout evolutionary history. In modes of both competition and cooperation, and particularly in the phenomenon of co-evolution, we see parts of nature altering other parts as a means of achieving their own ends or harnessing the services of the other parts. Ants ?herd? aphids for access to the honeydew they secrete, and aphids release chemical signals that warn other aphids of an attack by predators, as well as alerting the ants so they can attack the invader. Plants respond to attack by producing toxins. Plants smother other plants, and trap insects. Flowers seduce by hue and odor, bending other living creatures to actions that predispose towards species survival. Lightning strikes burn thousands of acres of forest, and the creatures therein. Even inanimate matter, like the mineral dust spewed from volcanoes, alters climates and causes the extinction of hundreds of species, including the dinosaurs.
Should we alter nature?
There seems to be no compelling reason why we should not. There are, however, various motivations for altering nature; are all of them acceptable? Among them are:
? Survival (of homo sapiens)
? Better health (of either homo sapiens or other parts of nature)
? Curiosity
? Whimsy
? Malignity towards nature
At first glance, this list appears to move from the more to the less acceptable. But even this appearance is not an infallible guide.
Most humans agree that attempts to eliminate diseases like smallpox or polio from the earth are a good thing. If we could, we would eliminate malaria. Yet such attempts surely exhibit malignity towards those living organisms that are smallpox, polio, and malaria! It is hard to see why our making those organisms extinct is more acceptable than the extinction of frogs, bees, birds or tigers, all of which compete for ecological niches on earth, and are capable of killing humans under certain circumstances. Therefore, none of these motivations leads us to answer the question ?should we alter nature?? with an unequivocal negative.
Should we alter nature? A creature with a conscience (perhaps the only one so equipped?), may still answer ?yes,? but qualify the affirmative. Such qualifications are less likely to refer to ?whether,? and more likely to refer to ?why?? or ?how?? or ?how much?? or ?under what circumstances?? Possession of a conscience does not remove us from nature, but it adds to our sense of responsibility, for it flags that we have choices.
In the end, we also choose to reject St. Augustine?s advice, with which we began this rumination. As Charles Freeman points out, to espouse this advice is to close the mind. Nowhere in nature do we find precedence or mandate for such self-amputation. Nor do we find precedence or mandate for not altering nature.
