The very question of anything being "OK" implies a judgement being passed. As such, the concept of "OK" must be quantified. Rain falling at high elevations, running down a mountain or hill, will create its own path - and that path may be altered over the existence of that mountain or hill. There is no judgement, no right or wrong to this event. We were not here when our planet first came to be. And since that time, there have been significant alterations. Our "OK" was not in question. We should accept alterations to nature as a reality. We should choose to alter nature in the way we see fit. To suggest it is not "OK" to alter nature suggests there are some pre-determined rules to our existence - or the existence of nature. Implied in this position is the thought that it is not "OK" to alter nature because it depletes our ability to exist (either in the current sense or in the long term). Once again, this suggests that there are pre-determined rules (determined prior to our existence). And that is not the case. (There is no Owner's Manual to nature or to our existence.) Man came along and has laid down rules in many forms. Depending upon which rules a person believes in, that person can then determine if s/he is "OK" with altering nature.

Humans are animals. It's as simple as that, and although we have developed a capacity to make decisions based on ethics, we are still a part of nature. Every breath we take contributes to the carbon cycle. Each step we take might kill some grass or crush a few spiders. With that being said, I do believe it is fine to ALTER nature, but not to intensionally damage it in an irreversible way should our actions produce a major undesired result. For example, if A is walking along and A sees an apple, A might just pick the apple, eat it, and keep going. He has altered nature, but at the same time, he's allowing the other seeds in the area of the first apple more chance to grow. B, however, is walking along, sees a forest and decides "I'm going to burn the forest down and salt the earth when it's done smoldering." Clearly we can see that this is just destruction, but at the same time, it is an alteration of nature. So, as I said before, it is OK to alter nature so long as common sense is used, and one does not destroy nature (which isn't so much an alteration of nature as it is a killing of nature).

I think it is ok to alter nature. If we as people have become so intelligent that we can do this then why not??? I dont think its good to change things to make them unhealthy or put them at a disadvantage but if you can change things for the better or to give a person something that they want then why not???

Each commentator has made assumptions which are beyond their ability to make. First,Don states that "man came along." Don has laid his cards on the table showing an evolutionary worldview. He assumes that science, which cannot lead us into truth but accounts for the unknown with guesses based on what is known within a limited finite experiment, is correct and therefore evolutionary laws prevail. Since there is no owner's manual why would there be rules to define what is OK? Second, Dustin make value judgments according to common sense. Without defining common sense we cannot discuss his point further. Third, Corbin make the same value judgment by using the terms "better" and "unhealthy." What is better and what is unhealthy? These are values based on the writer's understanding of the terms and not necessarily the reader's. Again, without defining the terms from the beginning and reaching a consensus among the participants there can be no further discussion. Lastly, the original question is faulty by stating human beings are rational and moral. Dear questioner, what is rational and what is moral? Both presuppose a value, or as Don stated, a judgment, which exists apart from man. Who or what decided what is rational and what is moral? If you can define these terms for us, then perhaps we can discuss the question.

Is it okay to alter nature? Our species of Homo sapiens evolved into a bipedal, tool using, intelligent (relatively speaking) creature that learned to manipulate our environment and grow ascendant over all other species on the planet. Obviously, altering nature IS our credo, our purpose, our objective. From the first time man tamed fire and used it for slash and burn agriculture to now when we reconfigure most of the planet's surface to meet our needs, whims, and desires. Will we someday become advanced enough to explore, colonize, and manipulate the solar system, our galaxy, other galaxies, the entire universe (and possibly other dimensions)? Could we harness the entire output of the sun, encase that sphere (Dyson Sphere) and harness incredible energies? How about harnessing the energy of a black hole or all the millions of stars in a globular cluster? It is possible BUT is it ethical? Our stewardship of this planet already raises frightening questions. On one level we destroy ecosystems and millions of species mostly for profit and/or to make life more convenient. We vivisection, abuse, dissect, and torture, in the name of science and medical advancement, creatures as seemingly insignificant as bacteria to rats, cats, chimps, and dolphins (the seccnd most intelligent species on Earth--maybe first). Surely it is our right. We do it for the benefit of all mankind, supposedly. We concoct amazing solvents, chemicals, and amalgams of metallurgy (computers, TVs, cellphones, B-2 bombers, radiological medical devices, plutonium, etc) but we discard these things--throwaway society--in such irresponsible, haphazard ways that we threaten our own gene pool with our stupidity. So, can we step back and view our altering of nature from the another perspective? If there is a Galactic Civilization, is it the Law of the Jungle amongst those species--or more likely does it rest on a greater ethic. We have not been contacted perhaps because species so different than us physically and mentally view with great aversion our treatment of our fellow inhabitants of the Earth AND how we interact with Mother Nature on a daily basis. Even so-called primitive peoples are "civilized" enough to live somewhat within nature (the Asian tsunami of 2005 was perceived by animals and primitive tribes in touch with the vibrations and subtle cues of nature--we advanced humans were too busy watching reruns of American Idol down by the pool when that wall of water hit). And if we can not be good stewards of a small blue paradise, an oasis in a violent, deadly universe filled with gamma ray bursts, black holes, exploding stars, colliding asteroids, and other calamities--do we really believe we'll be asked to join the Galactic Union? We are the most rank amateurs as Nature Stewards. Sort of like the United Nations dropping by to ask a cannibal tribe if they want a seat on the Security Council. Frank Drake's equation for determining how many "intelligent" civilizations exist in the universe factors in the duration of one's civilization. Perhaps we're not unlike other species that have poisoned, blasted, plaqued, or grey gooed (runaway self replicating micro machines run amok) themselves into oblivion. Hopefully, the Galactic Union thinks we'll turn it around soon and reverse the death spiral of Homo Sapien Extinction we seem to be riding (hair-trigger nuclear weapons, germ warfare arsenals, nuclear bomb factories and their deadly by-products buried in shallow holes in cardboard boxes leaking into the groundwater). If not, we'll end up as another case study of Biped Nature-Altering Failed Species Number 459.739. Either way, a few billion years from now (before the sun's output increases and eventually 'ol Sol swells into a Red Giant swallowing the Earth) the planet's last days will see a prestine paradise devoid of humans--we'll either have gone on to greater pursuits or be a long vanquished failed experiment of the evolutionary ladder. If you're religious, this viewpoint isn't necessarily irrelevant, afterall, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, i.e., The One God may eventually decide it's time to spread the word to another more worthy lifeform on Earth--dolphins may reach perfection way before us tree-swinging bipeds. All it takes is a small chunk of rock (see asteroid caused extinctions in the fossil record, they occur about every several dozen million years--we're pretty stupid if we let that happen to us but check April 13, 2029/2036 on Google). Or, hey Ultimate Beings have a whole megaverse to choose from--this little backwater world may have outlived its usefulness. I'm betting we'll make it though. After all this doom and gloom, like Churchill said about Americans (applying his quote to all of us humans) "Eventually, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities, they'll do the right thing!" First test for New Millennium Humankind--that pesky global warming prognosis.

It's ok to alter nature as long as the person altering it does not intervene with me being part of the food chain.

For me, the prerequisite questions are what is nature, and what does it mean to alter it? And i can agree with Foley when he says "Dear questioner, what is rational and what is moral?" This weeks question suggests that humans are beyond, or outside nature in some sense. I argue that human abilities are not as unique or privileged as we would like to think. There is no question that humans manipulate their "natural" surroundings in order to meet their goals and desires. There is no question that some of these manipulations cause more discord than harmony (for example, using atomic fusion --a natural process-- to make weapons). I think that it is an essential human characteristic to try to alter existing phenomenon in order to bring them in line with our goals. If the question were HOW do we alter nature, the answer would be technology. For me it is important to ask whether or not we have enough sense to apply our knowledge in ways that are true beneficial. Even so, there is no good standard to make this measurement. I argue that there will often be unintended consequences, and knowledge developed for a certain end is often applied to situations beyond the original intent. This relates to my feelings about restricting scientific research. War has always been an engine of technological innovation, and sad as it may seem, it is easier to get research money for new weapons systems than new treatments for malaria. Both of these things may be seen as ways to alter nature, although at a moral level, there is a clear difference. I think that research into new ways of "altering nature" ought to be aimed at world-wide flourishing, rather than directed by for profit corporations and the military.

Don't alter nature, what if we are living a movie like the butterfly effect? We could really mess things up. Think about that.

Is it ok to alter nature? The truth is we can't avoid changing nature. Say I walk in mud, i leave a footprint. The next day it rains and fills that hole. Within a few days the hole is full of organisms; a small temporary ecosystem is created. From here birds eat the organisms, having eaten, the birds are no longer hungry positivly effecting insect populations. With more insects they are able to eat more of the wild fruits which effects the herbavoires and goes to predators and then us. Had i not stepped there the hole would have never formed and there would never have been organisms in that spot. By creating the means for life to spawn i have interrupted the ecosystem. Though something like this is highly unlikely to be easily unseen on the large scope of things but the fact remains that nature was altered. There is no way out of altering nature. Its not a question of it being ok, we have no choice, but we can choose is to change the enviroment in small stages. Its like any other system trying to auto correct. I change one thing it can handle it, but if i change multiple things it can't keep up. We must change the enviroment to sustain us in the long run. And not surprisingly when we alter our enviroment we have to adapt to natures reaction to our change. Its a constant tug of war. We alter nature, it alters us. So its not "is it ok to alter nature" its is it ok to alter ourselves to match our consequences? And that depends on the change, not all change is bad.

Absolutely no! The world we live in has taken eons to evolve into the habitat that has enabled life and all that we experience. As rigorous as Mother Nature may seem when you are in a little boat in the middle of the ocean ? for a simple example ? nature is really a very delicate system. Pushing it too far is very dangerous. Humans causing perturbations to this system is like playing Russian roulette. Some may seem scientifically ethical, innocent, and etc. but you really never know when something we do will tip the scale causing a snowball effect that disables the system from maintaining life as we know it. Personally I got my finger crossed. We do some very scary stuff as it is. The global warming scenario for example: people argue whether it exists. Look at the soot we dump into the atmosphere constantly on a global scale - not to mention harmful gases. This is absolutely having a continued impact on the natural balance. Systematically it does not need to act alone to cause a catastrophe. If the world decides to warm up a little on its own, what we are doing can amplify that natural phenomenon and actually tip the scale too far. This is one small example in a system that has arguably infinite sub systems which if disturbed in the right/wrong manner could escalate causing imbalance.

Obviously, we alter nature with every step we take so the fine line of "OK" lies between nessicary and excess. Being the advanced species we are have a right to further our quality of life. Although the process of advnacement often times leads to discruction of nature, It can be determined "ok" if as much effort and funds goes in to repairing or preventing this damage, as does the advancement that leads to its destruction

I think an understanding of consequence is necessary before deciding. Once I understand this idea myself, I figure I’ll be able to more appropriately consider something as being “ok”.

I’m sorry Ivan, but your dog is most definitely NOT a part of nature. It’s a heavily domesticated mutant of mutants from untold generations of human efforts to parse traits from the genome of wild wolves. Poor Fido is less exotic, less “natural” than even a chicken, I’m afraid.

Whether it’s OK or not, we see yet again, H. sapiens almost can’t help but change nature! It’s a byproduct of our very existence. When I look out the airplane window, it seems like our species is a spreading skin disease on Gaia.

The whole organism’s health is starting to reflect the presence of this “intelligent” infection. Will we have the good sense not to destroy our host and perish with it, or will we go on to infect other organisms? Probably both, if we survive long enough as a species.

It is human nature to do what is best for your gene pool and species as a whole. Every action should benefit either you or your family, friends, etc. So following those lines it is ok to alter nature. But altering nature too much will have negative effects on humans. i.e global warming, deforestation, things like that.

We are altering the nature in every possible way. It is usually based on our needs that we make changes in our environment. Some changes which seem to be fine at the time could be disastrous in the future and some changes which we think of as unnecessary or damaging at the moment could benefit us in the long run or would happen naturally in the future. We do not know what will happen in the future. Thus, we cannot decide if altering the nature is or is not OK. Nonetheless, it is clear that if we have not altered the nature we would not have made this much progress. For example, fire was one of the basic means of our advancements. We cut down trees, burn coal, and extract oil because we need fuel for fire. Nobody can deny how much our lives have been improved because of fire. But if we knew how much we would damage the nature, would we still use fire since its discovery? Every change has its positive and negative consequences in the future. We do not know about the future. However, we can learn about similar changes from the past. Hence, we should alter the nature when needed but only when we can assure that its positive consequences outweigh its negative ones, at least in the present times, and in such a way that we do not make the same mistakes as we did in the past by our changes.

Is it OK to alter nature? In respsonse to such a question, one must first consider the arbitrary qualities that it possesses. What exactly does OK mean? Who determines what is deamed OK and for what criteria? Then you also must consider, what does the word nature truly encompass? To what extent are things natural? Can synthetic, man-made portions of existence ever become part of nature? For these reasons, I have difficulty in accepting and analyzing this question, but for the sake of argument I will propose definitions for the words in question. I will define OK as a morally accepted action that does not harm or deter the existence of the natural world, while defining nature as the whole of our environment including both man made and natural entities.
As a superior species, humans alter almost everything we come into contact with whether it be from the most minute footprint to the complete development of a tract of land. The fact is we alter nature as a part of our existence and as a means to further our existence in much the same way that the majority of living creatures as a part of nature do. Groundhogs dig burrows, birds build nests, and deer defacate in streams. In some way, all forms of nature are altered throughout time. Nature alters nature. It may be harmful or harmless, but the earthly system has continued to replenish itself for countless years. I feel it is imperative to make the distinction between human alteration of nature and natural alteration.
If we discuss the alterations of nature by man, we realize quickly how past alterations affect our lives today. We then consider how present day actions will affect our future, which I feel is the real root of this question. In this case, I feel most certainly that there are forms of alteration that must occur and continue to occur to ensure our survival and continued propogation as a species. We need energy resources, whether they be fossil fuels, wind, or water. Even alternative energy sources alter nature, but where would we be without them? The comforts of our society are contigent upon our alterations to the natural environment. How many people would be willing to trade their comfortable lifestyle, including even the most miniscule of properties, for a perfectly natural environment, which we cannot even possibly define?
Now, I do realize that we have altered nature in ways that the majority of people would agree are harmful. A majority of issues could fall into this category, but we are progressing ever further through time and require even further alterations. Quite simply, I feel that our society cannot survive without altering nature in some way, and therefore, it is OK. Even food production in any form, including organic and natural, alters nature. I do not feel it is OK to alter nature for the sake of doing so, or with knowingly harmful intentions. We must preserve our environment as a resource for the future, but it will most definitely include alteration.

In many cases, the alteration of nature is almost inevitable for the survival of the homo sapien species. In most cases, if we could not change our land and develop new ways to prevent disease, we would still have a population that is very small and dies from numerous diseases every year. With the current work and research that is being done in the medical profession we are able to prevent disease and increase the life expectancy of the human population. In my opinion, it would be ignorant to stop scientific research. The developments that have been made and will be made in the future, from this research, are phenomenal. New technologies such as, genetic engineering and cloning, in my opinion, are going to be the future of the agricultural industry. If food production wants to keep up with the growing population, this is our only choice. If these technologies lose funding many people in the world may go hungry, in the near future. For humans to survive we have altered nature from the days that we began using farming practices. If we want to survive we must alter nature to do it. I realize that you must set limitations to these new developments, however, the research must be conducted or we will have to reduce our population. Therefore, I support the alteration of nature, but also realize that it should be done, in many cases, within the hands of the government. In order to, prevent the production of a mutant animal and/or disease that could potentially get into the wrong hands and used for terrorism purposes.

I have trouble finding a distinction between humans and their environment. In fact, it seems plausible to suppose that human organisms are a part of nature. Consider a question like “Is it OK to use technology to get pregnant?” Where the question becomes “Should human beings alter human beings?” Should I take this to mean that human beings have natural and unnatural components? I wouldn’t. Instead, I would say that if humans are a part of nature, then natural behavior is nothing more than doing whatever it is that human organisms do. Therefore, “altering nature” is impossible.
However, I would never deny that questions such as “Is plastic surgery ok?” and “How should we treat the environment?” are legitimate, but I would be far more inclined to consider them to fit into the realm of ethical questions. Thus, “Should people cut down trees?” is a question about human beings and trees; it has nothing to do with “Man” and “Nature.”

I feel that it is okay to “alter” nature. I think we are as much a part of nature as any other species. Anything that another species does and the way in which its actions affect everything else are just a part of nature. So, I feel like our actions or “alterations” are, in the same way, just a part of nature. I don’t think that it matters whether our actions are genetic engineering or whether they are cutting down a tree, we are just another part of nature. Should we be cautious of our actions and try to prevent as much harm as possible? Sure. I just don’t think that we should inhibit our scientific advancements just because we are “altering” nature. I think our actions are just as much a part of nature as any other species and that we aren’t just some outside being that is disrupting a “nature” that we aren’t even really a part of.

We must remember that nature is merely a tool for life to evolve and spread, and as a tool nature must eventually hit a brick wall(due to the physical restrictions of living on a single planet.)I belive that humans are seperate from the nature we think of today, we may learn from it, and augment it however our ability to contol nature is an evolutional mandate. In order for life to continue to spread further humans must supplant the natural order and replace it with our own. We really dont need 200 species of exotic owls to spread life to other worlds. We need only preserve as much of nature as is necessary for humans to continue to survive and reproduce, that is really the only thing humans owe to nature, as that is the basic instinct of any animal.

I don’t feel there is anything wrong with preserving nature whenever it is possible. There is something charming about the symphonic pricision with which the worlds ecosystems intereact with each other, “the circle of life” to borrow a phrase from Walt Disney. It isn’t however worth a single Einstien or Von Braun. Humans have become life’s new tools for exspansion. Just as in nature when the moth emerges from its chrysalis then feeds on it for nutrients before flying off to reproduce again, humans must use the trees and the grass, the oil and the air to nurture ourselves for our own flight. To halt this process is to blaspheme against life itself, homeostasis is anathema to evolution, we must focus on spreading life not in containing it, that is the true purpose of mankind.

I have little information of the food chain and where we fit in it. But my opinion is that humans are natural killing machines. that is the way we’ve chosen ever since we existed. well say we just chose to kill off a simple creature, such as the worm. If we kill that then birds will have to rely on a diferent food scorce such as insects. And also plants will be less firtle and die off. then an animal that eats that plant will die then the animal that eats that and the animal that eats that and so on. And so with the bird eating that insect the insect ate the plant that died so the bird will starve. So we have collapesed the whole food chain with one simple animal. but it’s even worse than that. we take cows most pigs and chicken from the whole chain. AND we’ve killed so many animals to extinction. and then we also have global warming thats killing animals up north and down south. So we will only kill ourselves killing animals. And that’s how destructive man is that they are eventually killing themselves.

The best way to answer this question is with a question. What?s wrong with man using his power of intelligence, reason and logic to help himself to the best of his ability? Let me answer that for you: there is nothing wrong with it!

Ayn Rand said we are closer to the Dark Ages than we think. Did you know mystics by the bushel load said the use of anesthesia (during its initial implementation approx. 100 years ago) was against Gods will? Today only people that belong in an state institution refuse anesthesia.

Man bumbles and stumbles his way into the future (too slow for me). I wish I could wake up tomorrow and it would be 1000 years from now. By then likeminded humans will have changed the minds of those among us that claim a non-sensory means of knowledge. Sorry to disappoint you but it will be only at that point that man will truly be able to move forward, unabated doing everything within his means to help himself and his quality of existence!

DAS 84?

It is very interesting to think of this question in the terms of, though I may be narrowing them, human alteration to the “environment”, or biosphere in general. Biosphere actually captures with more clarity what the word environment is typically used for, so I use that. So anyway, it can probably be agreed upon that humans, as a species, are of the environment. we are a product of its natural laws, and circumstances. just like all other species. and just like all other species, our will to live and success in adapting to our environment has meant drastic changes in the biosphere in general. For analogy: there was a time in earths history when life was only present, in its greatest complexity and numbers anyway, in the sea. Then along came plants colonizing the once barren, rocky continents. all these 0xygen produceing CO2 consuming lifeforms changed, though we know they musnt have had change in mind, the composition of the atmosphere. this lead to the drastic decline of many species living in the oceans, as a consequence of glaciation. So i suppose like those land plants, we will do something of the same thing, though with no ill intentions. but it must be considered that we live in such an interconnected sort of biosphere, and that hurting it will inevitably hurt us. so making great change in the biosphere in a short amount of time, a common theme in all mass extinctions, is probably a bad thing. but historically thats how it goes.

i think the question of wether is it is ok to alter nature is irrelevant because the answer is irrelevant. if we(humans) say it is ok than we will help to speed up a continues cycle of change on our planet. if we say it isn’t ok than we try to stop those alterations but will inevitably fail because alterations to nature will happen wether we like it or not. i think the real question is wether we want to speed up those changes or do we want to try to slow them down?

Depends on the situation, but I think we ought to always proceed with caution.

I think that it is okay to alter nature in certain ways. sucks as things we need like wood, oil, and coal some thing have to be destroyed in order for us to survive. But we take more than we need and waste alot. and we should have to re-plant when we are done. But for the better america is definently doing more now than ever to try and turn things around like hybird cars and clean-up projects but it may be to late for all of that. i mean take the mon river for example its is completly destroyed and its not getting any better. So i think as long as we fix what we mess up it is okay to alter nature.

I think we (meaning people) do and will continually alter our nature. Similar to natural selection, people will adapt and seek out improvements to better their own lives. Plastic surgery procedures are performed not only for purely cosmetic reasons. Reconstructive plastic surgery can help people carry on their lives after surviving disastrous events. Should every girl go out and get a Breast Augmentation? That is a separate question. I do not know exactly where to draw the line, but if surgery and help someone who was horribly disfigured, why not?