Nature — Enemy of Man?

Most civilized, forward-thinking people of today's modern age recognize the fact of evolution. Whether it is straight and true Darwinian Evolution or the latest Christ-Cult interpretation, ‘Intelligent Design’1, only the most staunch of the ignorant or fanatically religious deny this.

Well, based upon this premise, we gather a few basic facts for my latest questions.

• Evolution progresses by virtue of the fact that the strong survive.
• It is accepted that for the strong to survive, in many cases (especially high-ordered species), there will be confrontation with a weaker species which must give way.
• This cycle is to continue ad infinitum until a conclusion is reached, exhausting all mutations; or, it is halted artificially, stagnating the process.

The one gotcha’ there is that last point, especially artificial arrest of evolution. When a choice is made to attempt the end of evolution, can that choice be condoned? In certain cases, how can it not?

To address the very first issue, I'm reminded of an argument I had once.

A terribly ‘eco-conscious’ acquaintance of mine was demonizing the generally republican ideal and big business in general. While I never have been a supporter or declaimer of either as I dislike politics immensely, I nonetheless decided to play devil's advocate. I thought it only fair that the issue be fleshed out so as to hold some virtue of thoughtful congress.

Well in this man's argument, he grew animated talking of the rainforest. The ‘rape of the rainforest’ if I recall correctly. I am not a judge of natural resources and sexual impropriety contained therein, but I would normally judge this statement fair. He was of the typically eco-minded persons out there. He believed that at the rate that harvesting was being conducted that the rainforest would be stripped in blah blah blah2 amount of years.

Well being the direct person I was, I simply asked the man when he believed it should be cut down. Aghast at the question, with a look of near incomprehension at my callousness, he replied – “Never… I mean, It should be saved.” To which, I myself was incapable of comprehension.

“So the rainforest should be saved, forever and forever never to be used but um… admired or something? I mean; be realistic, to keep it as it is, even expand it from what it is now into perpetuity for propriety's sake?” He came back with the old ‘for the future’ and ‘our future generations.’

Over the next couple of minutes, I proceeded to explain to him my understanding of basic human nature as it applies to the apprehension of freely available resources. Did this man truly think that the rainforest would exist until the end of time? We were to never utilize this great natural resource for the valuable lumber, medicines, real estate etc.?

Of course, believing himself a most upright person, he believed there would be others like him in the future to hold the rainforest in trust.

At this point the devil's advocate was becoming quite villified as others began to chime in to the conversation. While I certainly have a cynical, even nihlistic view of human socialism, I do not believe it an unrealistic thought-model of society. Unfortunately, the conversation continued no further as I was shouted down, most probably due to the toxic veracity in my words (or so I like to think).

So, In this case… Wouldn't it be against the edicts of evolution to save the rainforest? Viewed objectively, it is a resource that would further the development of man. How much so would have to be researched and of course, weighed against the costs of such a tremendous loss.3

Of course, this begs the moral question.

Seriously, you are calling down some bad mojo cutting down something as vast as the rainforest. Not to mention it's just ‘bad.’

So, do we save the rainforest? Is the question moot? By showing that we are capable of exercising a moral choice, does that just mean that we've evolved to our near end, and from here on out, the falloff rate just peters out?

We already choose when to (if ever) reproduce. We choose when to live. In some cases, we even choose when others live. Are we so much in control of our evolution we've stopped? I fail to come to that conclusion.

In the twentieth century alone, scientific advances were made that were leaps and bounds above the nineteenth century. And the congestion of them as well was much higher. I believe we continue to evolve specifically because we do use our natural resources. They allow us to attain new advances.

If we did, however, deny the natural flow, and saved the rainforest– how far might that abstention put our evolution back? As we deny the evolutionary path for our possible future generations, think of the generations spent scrambling to find those same advances by other means.

Would it not be more expedient to take the evolutionary jump now?

Shall we declare war on nature as our evolutionary right? Should we abstain and follow a more gentle path?

Can there be a middle ground?