Nature is an important part of our world, but only when convenient.
As a society, it seems we tend to look out for ourselves first and consider others, especially concerning nature and animals, later. Rats are often used for testing new products and chemicals without knowing what could happen to them. Most would see this as acceptable because the outcome of what may happen is unknown. They are only rats. It is considered unethical to test the product on a human without knowing what could happen. Most would argue that the product is better tested on a rat than on a human.
An essay that appeared in New Internationalist Magazine in 1996 discusses Carolyn Merchant’s book The Death of Nature. Merchant’s book presents an argument that the Scientific Revolution of 1500-1700 resulted in a major change in the perception of the earth and science and of the role of women in society.
The article goes on to state, “If people believe the Earth to be a living organism, a nurturing mother, then they will not want to mine into her entrails or cut down her forests. If, however, the planet is a lifeless machine, then it becomes acceptable to reshape it in the pursuit of profit.” We tend to look at the Earth and nature as a living organism only when it does not
interfere with us as humans.
The current outbreak of Bird Flu is an example of how humans put themselves before nature. Due to a current outbreak at a poultry farm in Norfolk, the farm may be forced to lay off nearly 500 workers. This is the typical news surrounding the bird flu: people being laid off, people that have gotten the disease from infected poultry, and the when and what will happen should the virus cross into a human bearing form. Typically, little is said about the tragedy or the devastation of the birds that have obtained the disease.
This is not an argument that birds dieing from bird flu should be headline news over hundreds of people losing their jobs from bird flu. It’s an example of how we put ourselves above nature when in a tough situation. We tend to think of nature and the Earth as living things only when convenient and the place of humans is stable.
The Guardian
New Internationalist, Sept 1996
‘Nature is an important part of our world, but only when convenient’
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what Whitney said. It is only human nature to look out for ourselves first. We are all only but human. We are selfish in such a way that we will definitely put ourselves first, in one way or another, before other people, let alone other living things.
I have to agree that animal testing sickens me as well. It is not ethical at all to test on other living organisms just because ‘it is considered unethical to test the product on a human without knowing what could happen’. What gives us the right to take other living things’ lives? That we have the ability to? Does that give us the right to do so? Obviously not! Human beings are just taking advantage of the power over others!
However, animal testing for medication purposes is negotiable. This is because we live in a society where ‘survival of the fittest’ is a motto. Therefore, some may argue that animal testing is somewhat necessary.
Whitney says that: ‘We tend to look at the Earth and nature as a living organism only when it does not interfere with us as human.’ This statement is so true! We tend to take nature for granted and then we blame the fact that we are able to ‘enjoy’ all things offered by nature!
David Hume (2007):
‘Of all the animals, with which this globe is peopled, there is none towards whom nature seems, at first sight, to have exercised more cruelty than towards man, in the numberless wants and necessities, with which she has loaded him, and in the slender means, which she affords to the relieving these necessities.’
To conclude, how are we to define what is of right or wrong? What is of human nature or what is then an artificial necessity of what we consume? To me, it is all always down to the person him/herself to decide his/her own principles. What is proper or ethical, eventually, is only but a benchmark that society imposes.
David Hume (2007):
‘The remedy, then, is not derived from nature, but from artifice; or more properly speaking, nature provides a remedy in the judgment and understanding, for what is irregular and incommodious in the affections.’
Men, from their early education in society, have become sensible of the advantages that result from nature. Whether or not he/she treasures it thereafter, is of personal choice. Thus, we don’t really have a right to judge after all.
References:
etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92t/chapter74.html
The Guardian