Is “Mother Nature” a Real Thing?
One commenter here ridicules another: “Does ‘Mother Nature’ have an email address? I’ve Googled but can’t seem to find her.”
Here’s my personal take on this, FWIW. The scientist in me understands the fallacy of assigning human characteristics to non-human entities. In fact, this is known in literature as the “pathetic fallacy,” (“pathetic” here meaning “of pathos, or feeling”). For example, we talk about the “cruel sea,” where in fact, there is nothing at all cruel about the sea; it’s just a body of water.
Yet the scientist in me also provides caution about hubris, of thinking I know more about the universe that I, in fact, actually do. I try not to have metaphysical beliefs that can’t be proven one way or the other, e.g., “Is there an intelligence to the universe?” I don’t know, and neither do you.
Having said that, as a practical matter, it makes a great deal of sense to think about natural forces that lie behind all the physical/chemical/biological stuff on Earth as “Mother Nature.” There most definitely does seem to be an enormously powerful force that acts to bring the planet back to equilibrium when someone or something has perturbed that stasis, much like the reaction our bodies take when we’ve cut our flesh, been invaded by bacteria, suffered dehydration, or been exposed to long periods of heat or cold. I’m not saying that these forces are intelligent, but in practice, there’s no harm is treating them as if they were.
Insofar as we humans have no epistemic access to things like the intelligence of the universe, I tend to keep quiet and respect the right of others to believe what they will.
Most importantly, I would point out that the most common motive behind ridiculing people who anthropomorphize Mother Nature is an attempt to shirk responsibilities as environmental stewards. People who wish to degrade the environment for their personal convenience or profit will need far better justification than arguing that Mother Nature doesn’t have an email address.
There are many things in the universe that aren’t well understood, such as the clinically proven effects of positive intent, or the placebo effect.
Many of our nation’s founders were Deists, who believed in a creator as a prime mover and the maker of cosmic law, but not as a deity remaining presently active participant in human affairs.
In this nation, we have a tradition of respect for peoples’ religious beliefs, as long as no direct demonstrable harm comes of those beliefs.
There are folks today – in positions of leadership – who have voiced their actively employed judgment that it doesn’t matter if our behavior is lethally disrupting our climate, because ‘God can change all that in the blink of an eye.’
Theologically, this feels much like a violation of the tenet, “Tempt not the Lord thy God” …to persist willfully in destructive behavior, expecting divine intervention.
“Tempt not the Lord thy God” is the very BEST anyone could POSSIBLY say about that. More realistically, I would say that anyone who cherry-picks biblical passages to justify criminality is himself a criminal. You can quote me on that. 🙂
Craig,
Your observation reminds me of the old Australian’s saying of “having two-bob each way!” (a ‘bob’ was an old fashioned monetary unit roughly equivalent in value to $ 2 dollars in today terms).:)
My objection to terms like “Mother Nature” is the employment of such emotive terms to justify beliefs unable to be established by reasoned argument or logic. Such terms excuse the advocate from conducting any comprehensive research relying on superficial belief.
Why do you assume all those who dislike the use of emotive anthropomorphized terms to justify lazy or invalid advocacy are automatically “People who wish to degrade the environment for their personal convenience or profit ” ?
I wouldn’t describe myself as wishing to “to degrade the environment for their personal convenience or profit ” , in fact to the contrary, for many years I believe of made real and practical efforts (with some modest success) to improve and better the environment and natural world.
The world has had enough of “green’ advocates with impractical, moralistic, sanctimonious idea’s on how to spend other peoples money on silly , wasteful concepts !
People have grown weary of rhetoric and symbolism. Environmentalists must display realistic, practical and affordable attitudes when asking for public acceptance.
I smell a Straw Man argument.
The idea has some validity, because an ecosystem evolves just as a biological organism does.. and a large collection of ecosystems also evolves. So the evolved macro-ecosystem of the planet today is the product of constant evolution and adaptation. As such, some natural defenses and feedbacks have evolved into the system. It seems to behave somewhat organically at times.
But the problem with the concept of “Mother Nature” or “Gaea” or whatever other attempt to personify nature is that it deflects both responsibility and accountability. If nature is a goddess figure, then you aren’t accountable for hurting endangered species, poisoning local species, poisoning humans… you’re just harming some kind of abstract that you can choose not to believe in. But far worse, if “Mother Nature” has a sentience and a power, for far too many people they leave it to “her” to protect “herself”.
In both accountability and responsibility (for polluters and protectors), the instinct to personify nature is unhelpful, even if it can be easily understood.