Natural

 

Instinctively, we manipulate time with rocks--

stone toys of the Earth in the wrong hands--it is natural

     for man to build up, to destroy.

We fling mud at the sea,

     and weep at the never-ending slosh.

 

         The other evening my friend Michelle and I joined a group of UCSD students called the Muir Environmental Coalition (MEC) for discussions about environmental issues. These well-intentioned students were planning to drive up to Julian, about two hours northeast of San Diego, to pick up litter along the highways leading over the mountains into the Anza Borrego desert. Other field trips were planned, all within driving distance, to sites of wildlife preservation. One boy had a large truck that would hold the necessary gear, and a couple of others drove vans that would carry the half dozen students who wanted to go. I couldn't help thinking that they could provide just as much benefit if they'd clean up along the highways in San Diego. Then they wouldn't have to burn the fuel necessary to drive their gas-guzzling vehicles up to and back from Julian releasing pounds of CO₂ into the atmosphere that would contribute to global warming. However, I said nothing.

         The young students, mostly freshmen, were curious why a professor would show up at a student meeting. I sensed an atmosphere of mistrust in spite of the fact that a couple of them knew Michelle. We explained that we were concerned about the multifarious effects our one species was having on the habitats of all other species on the planet. We mentioned the loss of our wetlands and forests, global warming, loss of our ice fields and glaciers, pollution, ozone depletion, destruction of the oceans, and most importantly, general loss of biodiversity due to species extinction. All of these deleterious effects, we asserted, could be attributed to our excessive human population. Despite their apparent interest in environmental issues, this was clearly not what the MEC students had wanted to hear, and not the type of problem they wanted to think about. One curly-haired boy asked me what we would propose, and I responded saying that the students and faculty of PREP were convinced that the one solution that would make a real difference was to reduce the human population. Once again, red flags of alarm went up. I'm sure many of the girls and probably some of the boys were looking forward to having children, and they didn't want to have to feel guilty about it. The atmosphere turned cloudier. How was this to be achieved? "Well," I said, "the only approach that would allow population reduction without human suffering would involve restricting the birth rate." The curly-haired boy didn't like that at all. "That would be unnatural," he said. I retorted saying that we already have about a hundred million people starving to death worldwide, and many more are suffering from malnutrition. Further, projections suggest that by the year 2025, 50% of the world population will lack adequate drinking water, and by year 2050, 50% will be starving. His response caught me totally off guard. "Well," he said, "at least it will be natural."

         Let's reflect on this word "natural." According to Webster's dictionary, natural means: "of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature; produced or existing in nature; not artificial or manufactured." The definition continues: "In a state provided by nature without man-made changes; wild, uncultivated." According to these definitions, almost everything we humans are doing to the globe is unnatural. It's unnatural for us to use medicines, to prevent disease and to prolong life. It's unnatural to sterilize or preserve food sources. It's unnatural for us to use agricultural methods or to raise and kill animals to feed the human population. It's unnatural to create the industrial technologies that have allowed our population to reach astronomical proportions. It's even unnatural for us to read and write books, acquire knowledge, pursue an education, make scientific discoveries, write a symphony or paint a picture. Clearly, then, it's unnatural to destroy nature or any facet of it. In short, almost everything we do in human society is unnatural. Yet few of us would be willing to give up more than a very few of the advances of our technological society without putting up a fight. Recognizing these facts prevents us from using "natural" as a measure of what's right or good.

         We return to the dictionary and find that natural also means: "innately felt to be right; based on instinctive moral feeling." Ah, that's better! We innately feel that medicines, canned foods, and cooked meat are morally correct, even if they are "unnatural" according to Webster's original definition. Much of what human society dictates is unnatural. We think it right to save or prolong a human life, any human life, regardless of its condition, regardless of the expense or approach required, and regardless of the consequences to the rest of the Earth. We feel that our laws, religious beliefs and social taboos are moral even if they are unnatural. In fact, we feel that our entire moral structure is good even though Webster's first set of definitions requires that we label it as unnatural. We insist upon our own social beliefs, regardless of how unnatural they are.

         But then, what do we mean by "innately felt to be right"? Based on the instinctive moral feelings of whom? Do we all have the same moral feelings? Of course not. Some of us don't consider it natural to let a comatose person die while others do. Some of us think it morally wrong for the human population to unwittingly exterminate tens of thousands of other living species every year, but others don't seem to be concerned. All of us, I think, would object to the eventual extermination of the human race due to environmental pollution and global warming, but others don't have the foresight to even recognize that such a possibility exists.

         There is little question that greed, avarice, gluttony, carelessness, and all the other human foibles that make the human being seem less virtuous are "natural" human traits. Are we then to use NATURAL as our standard of what is good, moral or even acceptable? I think we must put our various values into proper perspective and act accordingly. Most of us want to preserve our planet so that it can sustain a robust biosphere for many centuries to come. We hope that future generations will have the benefits and experience the beauty that have been our heritage, and the only way this goal can be achieved is to reduce the human population.

If we want to preserve the Earth and avoid inflicting tremendous human suffering, we need to restrict the birth rate so that fewer children are brought into the world. Only then can mankind fit into nature without destroying it. If starvation and suffering are natural, then the natural progression of events should be avoided if at all possible. If you knew that your potential offspring were destined to experience tremendous suffering and die of starvation, would you choose to give birth? Then maybe you should reconsider the impact of such a choice.