A couple of days ago, I had a small discussion with some close friends. Whilst it was not a fight, it definitely ended up as a very interesting and useful debate.
What started the whole thing was a heart-wrenching picture of a little boy in Africa, about to die of starvation (FAMOUS KEVIN CARTER PHOTO THAT MADE THE WORLD CRY). Stalking the infant is a vulture, patiently waiting for the child to pass away, so that it could have its food. Needless to say, it is almost impossible to look at the picture twice - the reason why I do not include it in this post (anyone who has the heart, can search it on internet).
However, after we looked at this picture, a little debate started with someone commenting that man tries to work against nature or tries to 'act God' - which is the source of most human problems. The first time I had heard this argument on various fora was in 1993-94, after Steven Spielberg's movie Jurassic Park made everyone shudder at the thought of monstrous dinosaurs being recreated. The conclusion in most drawing room discussions then was that man shouldn't work against nature - recreating dinosaurs will be an act against the will of 'mother nature'.
To my mind, however, this argument isn't logical or complete. Nothing irreligious, purely illogical.
To begin with, all human progress is based very much on working against nature. Be it cooking food, wearing clothes or living in houses. The nature does not command us do any of these.
What started the whole thing was a heart-wrenching picture of a little boy in Africa, about to die of starvation (FAMOUS KEVIN CARTER PHOTO THAT MADE THE WORLD CRY). Stalking the infant is a vulture, patiently waiting for the child to pass away, so that it could have its food. Needless to say, it is almost impossible to look at the picture twice - the reason why I do not include it in this post (anyone who has the heart, can search it on internet).
However, after we looked at this picture, a little debate started with someone commenting that man tries to work against nature or tries to 'act God' - which is the source of most human problems. The first time I had heard this argument on various fora was in 1993-94, after Steven Spielberg's movie Jurassic Park made everyone shudder at the thought of monstrous dinosaurs being recreated. The conclusion in most drawing room discussions then was that man shouldn't work against nature - recreating dinosaurs will be an act against the will of 'mother nature'.
To my mind, however, this argument isn't logical or complete. Nothing irreligious, purely illogical.
To begin with, all human progress is based very much on working against nature. Be it cooking food, wearing clothes or living in houses. The nature does not command us do any of these.
Even more... Nature doesn't even ask us to read or write -- which is the biggest basis of human development and progress.
In fact, most of us think of 'not going against nature' only for those things where we cannot conquer the forces of nature. Where we can, or already have, we don't realise that we work against nature. So, innocuous acts like living in a house, reading, writing, cooking, etc., do not consciously appear as acts of 'going against nature'. No other animal does these - not naturally, at least. They make their habitats strictly by natural means (like nests), and they communicate strictly by bodily means (sounds, gestures, signals, etc).
Humans, on the other hand, keep finding ways of challenging nature, or obstacles of nature. That is the sole basis of progress. Otherwise, no one would be sailing across oceans, there would be no commerce, no surgeries, no spectacles, no time-keeping, no weapons, no predictions of upcoming disasters, and so on... and on!
The confusion occurs when we realize our limitations in predicting or countering events like earthquakes or tsunamis, or such forces. We conclude that we fail against nature - or that we shouldn't try to challenge nature. But we forget that though we can't completely counter these calamities today; a little while ago in human history, we were equally incapable of dealing with tuberculosis, malaria, or, had to live with polio.
It does tell us something: Mankind always finds ways to conquer nature - pushing it at all times. Not just materialistically, but also for psychic things -- forecasting behaviours, making mind maps, etc.
It is not entirely impossible to predict the 'points' at which 'nature' can cause hindrance. It is important to remember that humans mostly work on the basis of circumnavigating these points. That is, till the time we learn ways of tackling them. Prevention to start with, and the cure, in due course.
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Now, to return to the painful Kevin Carter picture, where this discussion began:
Nature asks us to live in natural shelters, or in no shelters. Nature dictates that when a greater creature views us as its 'food', we either fight or escape or become the food. Those that are weaker in a preyed group (like kids) must therefore become food - either because they can't fight adequately, or can't run to evade the predator. That's how most animals hunt their food - by capturing the youngest or the oldest of the herd. Nature's Rule-1: Weakest must become the food.
Nature gives us the food that it produces (vegetation or meat), but not the one that is 'cultivated'. Cultivation, like making fire, is an act of artificialness -- an unnatural thing. Agricultural fields are not made by nature. Nature's Rule-2: When there is less food, the weakest must die.
So, if we keep the two things together, we realise that as per nature's rules,
1. Kids must become the easiest food (despite parental protection), and
2. Starvation is a consequence of inability to beat nature to cultivate enough food (or, inability to have healthy commerce - another artificial activity - to buy food from others).
HENCE, THAT POOR CHILD WAS DYING AND BECOMING FOOD, BECAUSE HIS SOCIETY WAS UNABLE TO BEAT NATURE. NOT THE OPPOSITE. HAD HIS SOCIETY BEEN ABLE TO WORK WELL AGAINST NATURE, THAT IS, PRODUCE SUFFICIENT FOOD AND PROVIDE SHELTER, THE CHILD WOULDN'T BE DYING AND BECOMING FOOD.
A final argument that came my way was "This is OK... But one shouldn't go too much against nature. Keep a balance, a non-confrontational and harmonious relationship with nature". This is wise, but is perplexing.
Can anyone define 'too much' while inventing? When man first produced fire, learnt cultivation, started manufacturing, made urban settlement, did construction, or any such thing, he had neither a grand welfare scheme nor an evil design. No invention or innovation has any visionary projection for everlasting future.
The problem is about how these are used at different times.
One can use fire to cook or burn down houses, one can do cultivation to create food supplies or spread diseases, we can do manufacturing to produce goods or deplete ozone layer, we can do urbanization to settle people or kill vegetation, etc. Is it ever possible to know all the consequences for all times in advance? So it is worthless blaming inventions or discoveries for any imbalance. It is akin to saying "Since some aeroplanes meet accidents, flying is bad - against nature. After all, humans are not supposed to fly!".
All innovation and invention is a result of changing the established or natural order -- challenging nature, therefore, is not bad.
What actually becomes problematic is not knowing how or when to assess the fallout. The perceived imbalance, disharmony, enmity towards nature, etc., emerge from not assessing the extent of impact at all times. Course correction is as much a need, as is invention or progress.
For that, to claim that challenging nature or inventing progressive things is sin, or is acting God, is categorically retrograde. Then we shouldn't be living our lives of today.
Very well argued. All human endeavor is primarily to preserve self with expenditure of minimum energy and effort. Actually all living things do the same. The markedly increased brain power, certainly makes them to pursue these goals much more vigorously. This may and does cause problems, and then we term them as " going against nature". A strict long term governance is needed to balance the benefits and the damages caused by our inventions and innovations rather than stopping all our activities. On a lighter note, if everything which is not done as nature intended becomes a sin or an act against God , marriage and democracy would be banned!
ReplyDeleteGreat point Chachaji... I should have known your canny ability to highlight 'marriage' and 'democracy' as prime examples. In retrospect, I would have argued better if I used these.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it is amazing how we tend to think generally. One further argument that I encountered (while debating on the issue) was that perhaps it is 'nature' that designed us in a manner that we invent, discover, innovate, etc. Therefore, we don't go against nature at all. Or, that we never win against nature - only do as it ordained! What I highlight for such arguments is this:
We are not fighting a boxing-match against nature - where one of the two needs to emerge victorious. What needs to be understood is that humans are wired in a manner that they can overcome 'challenges presented by nature'. This 'wiring', whether natural or unnatural, gives us the ability to tackle "nature's challenges". Some other life-forms also have certain abilities (like crows' counting skills), but humans have a far superior 'ability'. Remember, we are not wired with 'skills', but an 'ability to learn/develop skills'. That makes us very different.