Over the past week I read The End of Nature by Bill McKibben. It was written in 1989 so many of the environmental issues that he talks about have either happened or are happening. It is interesting, if not depressing to read something that lays out and predicts catastrophic occurrences, while realizing there were few things done to prevent those occurrences. I would strongly recommend someone to read it provided that they are not on any depression medicine. You do not walk away in a cheery mood.

Near the end of the book McKibben addresses the fact that in all reality nature is dead. Sure you can preserve parts of the planet, but the real independent nature is either almost dead or dead. In place of Nature we seek to control it and modify it. Whether it is genetically engineered food so that there is more protein and less fat in a chicken, or an engineering structure such as a dam to block up a river. We have, through our needs and wants, destroyed the once symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth.
We all know growth is good, but there has to be an end to growth. What are the consequences for growing too big? One may only have to look to the obesity epidemic that has hit many in America. What happens when you become obese? Your body systems do not work properly and will shut down if nothing is done. This is what we have to look forward to with too much growth. The Earth's systems will not be able handle the multiple of human needs/wants. This is happening already. For example the droughts in the Southwest use to happen and it was no big deal. Now we have so many people living in the southwest that we need to build dams to block the rivers like the Colorado. However, the regular ice melt that use to fuel the mighty Colorado River are decreasing due to global warming. This is just one example. There are other places all over the world that are suffering from the same overload. The great Pacific Garbage Patch, the ever growing death of the coral reefs, I could keep going.
So you might say. "Hey, we are smart beings we should be able to halt the global warming process through technology? If something goes extinct we will just clone it ." I do not doubt that we have the potential to halt or even reverse global warming, but the problem is that it is not the same. It is not natural. Nature is: The material world and its phenomena, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality. What would it be like to walk through a genetically engineered forest, and see cloned or genetically engineered rabbits and squirrels. How much would we really cherish those things. In essence the sacredness of their existence would cease to be. We would cherish them no more than we do our cheap plastic stuff we buy at Wal-Mart. When we do not want it anymore or need an "new" one we discard it. Would we really put that much care into a creature that was grown in a laboratory that if it dies, we could just make a new one. That is the real second danger here. That we lose our values of things that are real not just manufactured.
So the question is do we have the ability to stop the end of nature? To allow it to flourish on its' own? No. I would cherish the moments we have with it. Have your children immersed in it now while there are still some vestiges of real nature left. Because there may be a day when there will be a loss of memory of what real nature was. McKibben gives an analogy of that once we realize it is dying there may be a reluctance to become attached to it. Like one has a reluctance to choose friends that are terminally ill. However, I say that we should choose this terminally ill friend and spend as much time with it as we can. Perhaps in doing so we can slow the inevitable end of nature.
So you might say. "Hey, we are smart beings we should be able to halt the global warming process through technology? If something goes extinct we will just clone it ." I do not doubt that we have the potential to halt or even reverse global warming, but the problem is that it is not the same. It is not natural. Nature is: The material world and its phenomena, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality. What would it be like to walk through a genetically engineered forest, and see cloned or genetically engineered rabbits and squirrels. How much would we really cherish those things. In essence the sacredness of their existence would cease to be. We would cherish them no more than we do our cheap plastic stuff we buy at Wal-Mart. When we do not want it anymore or need an "new" one we discard it. Would we really put that much care into a creature that was grown in a laboratory that if it dies, we could just make a new one. That is the real second danger here. That we lose our values of things that are real not just manufactured.
So the question is do we have the ability to stop the end of nature? To allow it to flourish on its' own? No. I would cherish the moments we have with it. Have your children immersed in it now while there are still some vestiges of real nature left. Because there may be a day when there will be a loss of memory of what real nature was. McKibben gives an analogy of that once we realize it is dying there may be a reluctance to become attached to it. Like one has a reluctance to choose friends that are terminally ill. However, I say that we should choose this terminally ill friend and spend as much time with it as we can. Perhaps in doing so we can slow the inevitable end of nature.



