Freeman

ARTICLE

Why Is It Nature versus People?

Human Life Is Part of Nature

OCTOBER 01, 1995 by TIBOR R. MACHAN

Dr. Machan teaches philosophy at Auburn University, Alabama.

The environmentalist lobby in Washington is working overtime these days moaning over the prospect of reduced-budgets and rolled-back regulation.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not dismiss everything scary coming from ecologists. Human beings can be reckless and destructive, although I doubt our worry should be about the environment instead of ourselves. After all we can flourish only if there are no great disasters, whether of our own making or through climatic happenstance.

What makes me doubt the complete sanity of many environmentalists is their constant insistence on reading human life out of the rest of nature. As if we were not natural and did not belong with the rest of the world—indeed, as if we had been dumped into reality by some runaway garbage truck disposing of unnatural trash.

The plain fact is that we are every bit as natural as are ants, snail darters, spotted owls, or wetlands. We are the crown of creation, the highest level of nature attained in the known universe. What’s more, this means that housing developments, too, are part of nature. As are high-rise buildings, bridges, disposable diapers, and even nuclear waste.

Part of the rhetoric that gives environmentalists the apparent moral high ground concerns the supposed conflict between the sacrosanct natural versus the lowly artificial, technological, and “man-made.” I am sure we all have heard instances of this blather, as when some program on the Discovery channel proclaims that some part of nature has been undermined by, you guessed it, “MAN”!

Yet, consider this: when a zebra is destroyed by a lion, it isn’t depicted as the sad demise of some natural thing at the hands of an alien, unnatural force. When hurricanes, volcanoes, typhoons, or tornadoes wreak havoc across the globe, these are accepted as natural events, to be lamented as only minor disturbances, not ecological disasters. Oh, once in a while even these are traced in some incomprehensible, remote fashion to alleged human misconduct. (But just how that is conceived by the finger-wagging environmentalist crowd is rather bizarre. Most of those scientific types don’t really believe in freedom of the will, in the capacity of human beings to make real choices! So how then can they blame us for anything?)

In fact we are every bit as much a part of nature as those wetlands the environmentalists wish to protect from us. Why don’t they go out to protect other parts of nature from, say, termites or floods? Why they are unwilling to read out of this world everything else that changes the surrounding environment is one of those puzzles these folks simply refuse to address.

What makes sense is that human beings are a different natural phenomenon from, say, volcanoes and foxes, to name just two natural beings that cause some destruction here and there in the universe. But remember, birds are different from fish, and fish are different from rocks, and so forth and so forth. The fact that human beings manifest even radical differences is by no means unprecedented. Nature repeatedly keeps introducing such variations, nothing strange about that any more.

But no. The environmentalist crowd keeps treating the novelty that we are as freakish, alien, undesirable. Housing developments are not natural, nor are freeways, parking lots, or dams. Why? Well, there is no answer given to that question because the idea is obviously nutty. What a natural being does is by definition natural. It happens that doing wrong is new—other beings do not do the wrong thing, that’s reserved to human nature. But it’s natural, too. It is our task to avoid doing wrong, to keep doing right, but the problem is not between natural versus non-natural or anti-natural.

The whole rhetoric of environmentalism needs to be recast into terms that make better sense. Let’s not exclude human life from the realm of nature. Then we can ask whether it is the right thing for us to build houses, bridges, dams, parking lots, or nuclear power generators. Those are real issues. The nature versus human beings story is a phony one, through and through.

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

October 1995

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required

CURRENT ISSUE

December 2014

Unfortunately, educating people about phenomena that are counterintuitive, not-so-easy to remember, and suggest our individual lack of human control (for starters) can seem like an uphill battle in the war of ideas. So we sally forth into a kind of wilderness, an economic fairyland. We are myth busters in a world where people crave myths more than reality. Why do they so readily embrace untruth? Primarily because the immediate costs of doing so are so low and the psychic benefits are so high.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION

Essential Works from FEE

Economics in One Lesson (full text)

By HENRY HAZLITT

The full text of Hazlitt's famed primer on economic principles: read this first!


By FREDERIC BASTIAT

Frederic Bastiat's timeless defense of liberty for all. Once read and understood, nothing ever looks the same.


By F. A. HAYEK

There can be little doubt that man owes some of his greatest suc­cesses in the past to the fact that he has not been able to control so­cial life.


By JEFFREY A. TUCKER

Leonard Read took the lessons of entrepreneurship with him when he started his ideological venture.


By LEONARD E. READ

No one knows how to make a pencil: Leonard Read's classic (Audio, HTML, and PDF)