Claims of humanity oppressing nature through technological and scientific advancement have become more and more desperate as well as widespread over the past century. The same is true of concerns with regard to how people are becoming more distant from nature at the cause of cultural advancement. This opposition between nature and humanity appears as a common truth. It is used by environmental activists all over the world for a variety of reasons. The natural question arises that humanity may have indeed neglected nature in its development and focus on science. This however misses important aspects of the relationship between humans, nature, technology and science and assumes that the latter two can do no good for the first two. With widespread understanding of the seriousness of certain environmental issues, I propose that it is likely that science and technology will be used for constructive purposes in new generations in a more positive manner which brings them closer to nature.
The very idea of science in opposition to nature was born in the early Modern philosophy. The English empiricist Francis Bacon defined science as a method and tool kit for exploring nature. Science and nature were therefore related as subject and object. Bacon’s initial intention was to develop science as a theoretical frame of technology. The science itself was only a tool of exploration, not the truth itself. The opposition which has developed in relation to nature only underlines the reliance and faith in the existence of objective and quantifiable natural laws. To think of science as a theoretical basis for technological exploitation of nature (and the exploitation as a major feature of technology) is one rather archaic perspective on the relationship.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Science and Nature".
Typical issues that are covered in the contemporary environmentalist protest movement include the threat posed by technology due to pollution of air and water as well as climate change, which might lead to the extinction of life on Earth. Usually it is the impressive empirical reports, rooted in science that is able to describe the impacts of the technological enterprise on the natural system. Even if there is no such solid evidence, such as the ability to see an obvious thread, the scientific method of empirical hypothesizing and dynamic comparison use observation, notes and memory as evidence. In short, the only way to understand the threat that technology poses to nature is to use science. Ironically it is science that is the guardian of nature from the negative effects of technological development, since it is the human approach to observing and making determinations about nature.
Another popular claim about the relationship between humans and nature is that technology creates a greater and greater distance between the two. The human environment has become more and more artificial with every decade for centuries. Still, careful observation of nature using science helps to dissolve this constructed and imaginary opposition between nature and human experience as nothing more than a myth, since it is science that we use to discover that distance.
This argument regarding the creation of technological distance from science is more than a millennium old. When it was first introduced there was little knowledge with regard to the natural history of the Earth and the environment. Almost nothing was known of other planets and outer space. The common belief was that Earth was flat, and the environment was unchanging. These people did not know that previous species had become extinct due to maladaptive behaviors in relation to the environment, but today this is well understood. Unlike all other species we humans do have the unique capacity to control and adapt our environment rather than ourselves, and we do this was the assistance of both science and the technology that arises from it.
It is for these reasons that I believe that the strict opposition of science and technology against nature is a misrepresentation of the relationship. Science is not an enemy of nature, but as Bacon proposed it is a framework and a tool for exploring and investigating the natural world and our relationship to it. Human today can definitely influence the ecosystem, and this has the potential for both positive and negative impacts. It is only by the careful application of science and technology that humans have been able to understand and propose the prevention of natural catastrophe, such as that posed by carbon emissions creating climate change. The greatest tool available to humans in order to strengthen their relationship to nature, as well as to prevent environmental disaster, is the science to deduce the problems and issues and technology that provides solutions. Much like fire or a machete, science and technology have the capacity to be constructive as well as destructive. The way that they are used is entirely dependent on the intent of the human using them. Youth today have been taught from a young age with regard to the potential for disaster at the cause of technology, but they are also educated in how science and technology can be used for good, such as alternative energy and greener methods and products. We can therefore expect that the way that future generations relate to nature, technology and science will be one which has a more positive impact that those previous, who had not developed the sufficient science or technology to clearly see the implications, and the responsibility.
