Have we wandered in the dark?

And does the way we are looking for solutions to the effects of climate change have anything to do with the way we consider nature and why?

Nature is an evil mother

It is beyond discussion that age of Christianity in the western countries have influenced how we understand and see the world. Our western post- industrial, consumer, growth, knowledge, and commercialized societies are based upon more or less seculized Christianity based on our Christian heritage.

Christianity can be understood as a condition of the scientific culture and nature are secularized through the transcendence of the creator. Thus when nature is secularized man may subject the nature to science. “Mankind is considered above nature and nature is to be subjected”, Francis Bacon stated in the middle ages. Also he can be quoted for saying “nature is like an evil mother that will not give her children what is up to them.”

This anthropocentric way of looking upon nature has roots back to the bible and means that man alone has ethical significance. All other are at mans disposal as tools.

In the last decade’s mankind has though moved a little further into sentiensism, as well as other ways of considering nature have existed along the side with the anthropocentic. But in the general picture we are far from biocentrism where all living has a meaning.

And there might be a connection between this way of considering nature and the problems nature is experiencing at the moment.

We treat things as we see them

Our perception of nature is the point of departure to how we believe that nature should be treated.

“They way we look upon a thing, is the way we tend to treat it”(Jakob Wolf)

If you want to make a rough cut there are three points of departure.

 1. Scientific:

Science can help us understand the mechanism of the world, it gives us control. But nature remains an object to study upon. Science gives every object a number.

An example is this one which is a pig:

1 gagagcgagg acggggatga gaacgaggat gaggatgagg acgaggacga cgatgaggat 61 gacgacgagg acgaggacaa cgaatccgag ggcagcagct ccagctcgtc ctcctcgggg 121 gactcctcgg actctgactc caactgaggc tcagccccac gcggggcgcc cctcctcgac 181 tgaccacctt tgtttctctc ccatgttctg tcccctgccc cctggcctcc cccactttct 241 ttctttcttt ttcttttttc tttttttttt aaaaaaaaaa acaaaatcca ggggggagag 301 gcactggagg cgcccaggct aaaactctgc ggccttaaag ccatcagccc tggagggccc 361 tccagggagc gcaaccacca gactgagcca ccactggacc ggcccagccc accccttttt 421 tgcactcgca gttccgg

LOCUS BF078463 437 bp mRNA linear EST 18-OCT-2000

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=nucleotide&dopt=GenBank&list_uids=10872293

 2. Need:

Nature is a resource, and life is a proponement of death. If nature is but a resource that can fulfill mans needs, then we will treat it as a dead material without ethical significance.

 3. Experience:

Nature is not only surroundings, but also as a progenitor. Nature can be seen as independent, as something that has meaning, values and beauty.

By-product or conflict

These approaches to the way we look upon nature have significance and are background for how we approach climate changes and the possible solutions.

 If we assume that climate change is greatly created by mankind there are (if you generalize) two ways of understanding it.

 1. It is an unfortunate and unintended by-product of a harmonic and sustainable culture.

 2. It is a symptom of a culture that exists in conflict with its own nature foundation.

 1. If our point of departure is number one, then:

Nature is something that must adjust to our ways of living on earth. The solutions to climate change are techno fix, lowering the emissions of CO2 and adjust animals and plants so that they can continue to meet mans needs. This can be done by using bio-, GMO-, and nano technologies. Everything can be effectivised.

We will make nature adjust to our culture.

2. If our point of departure is number two, then we will have to:

Realize that the western culture is based on exploitation of nature and that we must change the ways we look upon it into a valorization of nature by new stories of nature and new tales of the “good life”.

This way culture can adjust to nature.

The forgotten act

If we know our values, then technical solutions and science can be used to put reality to our values. The technical challenge comes afterwards. If climate change is not just an unfortunate by-product of our fantastic culture then we need to change our perception of nature. Otherwise science and technology will not help us, because there will not be the political will in the populations to bear the costs that the implementation and development of those will require.

Maybe a widespread understanding and change in our perception of nature from exploitation towards more appreciation could be a part of a solution. It is at least worth considering the difference in what means we will accept- when we go from biological resource to meaningful lifeworld.

But this ethical, political and philosophical discussion and consideration that should be the base for action seems to have gone missing.

It seems that our societies are fixed on industrialization, commercialization and growth. Few considerations are left for the base of our actions. We are not willing to give nature a meaning in itself, it remains a resource for us to use, and that makes the whole thought of the sustainable society torn. We seem to have accepted, that it is the nature that must adjust- forgetting that we are a part of that nature, and that man are just a cell in the organism.

And that (to stay in the Christian anthology and universe) might move us closer to Judgement Day.

The above text above is a summary and reflection over one of the perspectives of a summit held in the Danish Parliament by the Council of Ethics and the Council of Consumers, that I attended. This way of looking upon climate change was represented by Mickey Gjerris, professor and Phd. from the Danish center of bioethics and risk estimates.