Why 'messing with nature in the right way' is good for you

Q: Is Science and human beings foolish to think they can mess with nature in any way they want?

Krishna: ‘Messing with nature’ is interpreted by people in several different ways depending on their perception caused by conditioning of their minds. The relationship between society and the natural world has played a particularly central role in emerging technologies – both in terms of how the public perceive them, and the dominant narratives in media coverage and stakeholder debates or contestation. Because some new technologies alter or mediate the way that people interact with their natural environment, they have frequently acted as fuels for debates about appropriate levels of human intervention in natural processes.

In a review of the language and metaphors used in newspaper coverage of genetics and biotechnology from the 1980s through to 2003 (1), it was found that references to ‘nature’ would frequently serve the purpose of linguistically identifying a clear, agreed upon boundary between that which is natural and ‘good’, and that which is un-natural and therefore open to question, or potentially wrong, immoral or unethical.

Awareness of the term ‘geoengineering’, and knowledge about what it means is low in general public, and does not appear to have increased over the past several years creating fear psychosis in them. The analogies used to describe certain technologies alluded very strongly to a ‘naturalness’, while others did not. For instance while Geo-engineering projects like afforestation  are seen as more natural, and therefore more acceptable, than others (such as the use of stratospheric aerosols to reflect sunlight).

Earlier nature used to mean “ the thing that is created by GOD” , a force not to be tinkered, tampered or otherwise interfered with.

In the present scientific era, nature is treated as a set of laws, rules and processes that could be observed, learnt, harnessed – and perhaps even controlled. Natural systems could no longer be considered independent from human influence. Nature is science based and science-run.

For some, nature has come to be equated with an environment that is under attack, can be measured and sustained, and needs protection.

But the truth is nature is not different from human beings and we are a part of it. So when we deal with nature, we are  dealing with ourselves too.

Science never asks us to go to the extreme and destroy nature. It only shows how to study, understand and use the knowledge for the benefit of mankind.

However, if you cannot understand this and therefore cannot use it correctly, you blame science for everything you have done to ‘overexploit the knowledge' provided by science without realising the consequences.

We are constructing dams on rivers to irrigate fields, provide water for drinking and for many other purposes. Hydro-electric projects create electricity. 

Aren’t we using agriculture biotechnology like genetic modification to feed the ever growing populations, produce useful drugs and medicines? How do you deal with food problems arising out of ever increasing populations without using emerging technologies? 

Nanotechnologies are recent additions that are dealt with in electronics, biomedicines, environment, food, textiles and what not.  The potential to ‘engineer’ at a sub-molecular level has given us a great power to enhance the quality of life.

Increasing life spans is also 'tinkering with nature". Because human beings were designed to live only up to 35-40 years by nature. All the years you got additionally is because of science and tinkering with nature! If you want to be wise and don't want to mess with nature accept to die at 35, agree to get starved, learn to live without power, and with pain!

 The choice is yours!