Man and the Balance of Nature

Among all of earth's organism man now enjoys a special position; he is no longer restricted to a particular biocoenosis. He can and does inhabit the jungles, deserts, and Polar Regions. The time is not far distant when he will be making space his home for extended periods. Technology gave man this power; he can divert mighty rivers, flatten entire mountains, make complete islands vanish. Aided by his agents man has become earth's most powerful force. Soon this might well assume cosmic dimensions in that man, with the help of atomic power, will be capable of such feats as changing our earth into a completely different heavenly body; for example, into a supernova.

Man no longer recognises natural enemies with the exception of some of the disease causing organisms. The consequence of these powers has been an enormous population increase... Enormous population increase and technological power have allowed man to extend his influence into even the remotest regions of our earth. The ocean fauna of the deepest Pacific is no freer a from this influence than the biocoenoses of the New Mexican desert. Even though man is no longer restricted to a specific biocoenosis and we would correctly say that the entire earth has become his home, he is still, for better or worse, dependent upon nature. Like every other organism man requires the five major components of nature's household for his existence: air, water, soil, plants and animals. These five components, however, are meaningful only when combined. They are so subtly interdependent and naturally restricting that man will never be successful in maintaining a purely artificial balance with nothing but cultivated plants and domesticated animals; he is not capable of replacing the natural biocoenoses with a synthetic system of his own making. The continued existence of many natural biocoenoses is necessary if our earth is to be preserved and is to continue developing. If man attempts to refutw:e this knowledge he will ultimately destroy himself.

We are certainly permitted to ask ourselves whether the protection of nature is actually justified, or whether it is simply the mission of a small group of eccentric nature fanatics. We can substantiate the urgency for sensible protection of nature with purely objective or technical facts as well as with subjective, idealistic arguments.

The main objective argument for the preservation of natural landscapes and biocoenoses is the dependency of man upon nature. An example of this is the high seas fisheries, one of the important sources of human nutrition. Agriculture and forestry are examples of indirect dependency. Although these crops are often not entirely natural, they still depend ultimately upon healthy natural soil and water relationships.

A further argument against the extermination of specific plant and animal forms is that we know far too little about the role most organisms play in nature's household to foresee the damage that may result from their extermination.

The recreational possibilities provided by nature constitute a further objective argument for its preservation. Opportunity to relax in nature is increasingly becoming a genuine requirement of the city dweller. Outdoor recreation is an important factor in his physical and mental well-being.

Finally, science has an obligation and aright to study all life forms that inhabit our earth. To date only a minute fraction of the total plant and animal life has been the object of organised study. For most organisms we know the name, distribution, and little more; for many not even that. With every animal or plant that disappears we lose one more possibility to penetrate and understand the diversity and the laws of life.

Among the idealistic or subjective arguments for nature's protection, our responsibility to coming generations is the most salient. We cannot assume the moral right of bequeathing our descendants a devastated world.

The aesthete feels that nature is worthy of protection because it is beautiful and harmonious, and because the destruction of nature would destroy this harmony. The moral philosopher recognises that nature is based on universal laws, and because he feels that every disturbance of this order is wrong, he also must support the protection of nature. Also among the subjective arguments are those of the religious man who considers nature a divine creation for which he feels reverence and awe. If he acts against this recognition, he disregards the will of the Creator.

Acknowledgement of these arguments, subjective and objective, makes the protection of nature a necessity. Nature's protection, however, must never become an end in itself. As the most powerful of all nature's creations, man is obliged to stand as earth's mortal source of guidance, and not aloof - a patient, harmless critic - as many nature fanatics would have it. The protection of nature must have the preservation of mankind as its ultimate end. Man should and must utilize nature wherever he can and wants; but this utilization must not cause permanent damage to the natural equilibrium.