Respecting both Nature and Technology

Leonie Overbeek
Doctoral student, Sofia University

Abstract: The imperative of responsibility as envisaged by Hans Jonas asks for a ‘heuristics of fear’ to be employed whenever new technology is considered for use. Specifically, the question should always be asked whether the consequences of its use will impact the ability of life to continue on the earth. However, if there is one aspect in which humanity differs radically from the rest of the animal kingdom, it is not being content to live in an environment that is less than comfortable and sustaining. Coupled with an immense curiosity about the world, and the ability to invent and then perfect technological innovations, mankind has always been busy with altering the landscape, agricultural and manufacturing practices, and resulting living conditions to suit ourselves. Harnessing power derived from steam and electricity to create virtually instant communication, speedy travel, and food production that is no longer dependent on seasonal vagaries has made the world a place where a population of ten billion people is becoming a reality, rather than a fantasy. Respecting nature in its regenerative as well as vulnerable properties, as the underlying sustainer of life, while also respecting the products of technology that support lives that are long and healthy and filled with the ability to create new ideas, is a balancing act but one that is needed if society, as we know it today, is to remain and grow in stature, both in values and in future abilities.

Keywords: technology and nature, respect, Hans Jonas, environmental values, balance, future life, sustainability

In the discourse about ecological and environmental matters catchphrase for the environmental movement became ‘Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle.’ The exact origin of the phrase is debatable, but it certainly stems from the 1970s and is widely used today to still urge people to consider the environment, reduce pollution, and conserve resources. However, in terms of changing behaviors, it is not enough to have a catchy slogan or educate people about environmental matters it seems to not even be enough for people to have or espouse environmental values. Kollmuss and Agyeman have demonstrated that there is a gap between environmental values and pro-environmental behavior [1].

It is partly because of that gap but also mainly because the drive to progress at all costs is so pervasive[2] the Jonas urges the development of an ethic based on what he calls the ‘heuristics of fear’ and which I would call respect.

However, the question arises as to whether it is possible to respect both nature and technology or even if we should have respect for both. In this article I argue that it is possible to respect both and that we should appreciate both these influences on our lives, admittedly for what might seem to be different reasons, but which, in the end, coalesce into a reason of utility and survival – we are dependent on both.

The respect I advocate is based on three factors: a fear of the destructive capacity and power of both nature and technology, an appreciation of the support of our lifestyle afforded through the existence and actions of both, and a feeling of awe as we contemplate both of these forces whose very essences are in many ways mysterious and unknown to us. Such respect should be cultivated and developed through education, examples in society, and constant reinforcement of the practice that can only be described as trying to answer the ‘what if’ question.

As for the aspect of fear: it should, theoretically, be omnipresent as our experience of technology grows. As Feibleman[3] wrote back in 1979, human nature and technology live in a sometimes uneasy alliance where a change has taken place from the many centuries when we lived at a pace where the same technology and behavior persisted from one generation to the next to the current situation where technology is almost running away from us. As he goes on to explain, from adaptive behavior (we adapt to and embrace the new technology slowly and over a long time) we are now displaying a new type of behavior, what he calls ‘instigative behavior’ (we develop and research and invent at a breakneck pace). However, this instigation towards newer and newer, ever more complex machines often negates the ‘heuristics of fear’ as the drive is towards technology that will make life even more comfortable and less of an effort, as Taviss[4]  points out. This increasing level of comfort is often regarded as beneficial, bringing a higher standard of living[5] in its wake. When people live in comfort, it is often difficult for them to conceive of disasters, whether in their immediate future or in some distant future they may not even live to see.

In fact, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to developing a healthy fear of technology’s consequences and thus a respect for its capabilities is the feeling of comfort in which most people in developed countries live. Even those who do not have the comforts of technology see it as bringing many benefits, rather than fearing its impact. The lessons taught by events such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about which Obama is reported to have said: „Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.“[6], seem easily forgotten as they recede further and further into the past. Yet, we should never forget that disasters hover around us all the time, and we should approach both nature and technology well aware of the destructive power lurking in both.

In many respects, technology, and nature share an aspect of unpredictable destructive capacity. Nature strikes through earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic outbursts, wildfires, droughts, and floods and in the process inflicts large losses, economically as well as to populations in terms of the impact of the death toll and the psychological impact of the aftermath of such disasters[7]. Of course, as Huppert and Sparks explain, for millennia people have lived in areas prone to earthquakes or volcanic activity, however, with the technological developments it is true that what were formerly small settlements, such as, for example, Tehran, are now megacities and so a small local event now has a huge impact[8]. Our respect for nature should rest on how we perceive its power, both destructive and generative, and to what extent we are responsible for the destructive power to have an increased impact as a result of our ignoring the basics such as proximity to earthquake faults, volcanoes or active storm centers such as Hurricane Alley in the United States of America[9].

As for technology, Romizowski[10] states: “Some see technology as morally neutral, since a hammer is a tool or a weapon depending on the user, while others see it as autonomous in that it creates its morality through the powerful nature of technologies such as nuclear weapons and power.” It seems to go without saying that much of the technological progress made during the second half of the 20^th century has benefited medicine, as we now have more advanced and effective healthcare[11]. As we examine this, we discover that even here the technology carries a sting in the tail, since such care has become more costly than ever before.

It seems then that the ‘heuristics of fear’ should be applied to all technology, and maybe to nature as well – but how? Romiszowksi[12] suggests some steps that can be taken when considering new technology:

• Interrogate the tool. We should ask, „Are we ready for you? What are your effects? Are you inherently good or bad for us? Are you consistent with the values we already hold?“ The result of interrogation may be not to adopt the tool at all.
• Conduct a dialogue with the tool. We merge with our tools. It is quite natural, because they are extensions of ourselves. The question is: what will I become, merged with you? The result of this dialogue may be not to use it in certain ways.
• Beta test the tool. We should never impose technologies on communities that do not desire them. We should find volunteers to try them, the way that software companies find beta testers for their products.
• Make mid-course corrections. We must have the wisdom and freedom to change our minds. Introduction of new technologies should be accompanied by a process for reviewing them at intervals rather than making a permanent commitment.
• Be prepared to renounce the tool. Scientists work endlessly on the „can“ and ignore the „should.“ Not everything that can be done should be done.

These are good suggestions, and I especially appreciate the final suggestion – that of renouncing the new technology if the answers to the interrogation and dialogue are negative. I would go further and suggest that interventions in and interactions with nature should be treated similarly. When we consider the alternatives of permaculture and conventional agriculture, we should ask ourselves if we “should” make the changes. Will they benefit both us and our future generations of life? Making changes in how we farm or use nature, whether by creating wilderness areas or mining it for resources should also be done only after thinking about the impact in the short and long term.

What is perhaps more difficult in today’s world is to appreciate the benefits of nature, especially since they have become more and more obscured by technology. As Williams[13] writes, technology lessens the impact of nature and provides tools that remove people from a natural environment. Which, for many, is an idyllic state, since pre-technological societies lived in fear of nature and its vagaries, often ascribing these to the whims of gods displeased with man, or seeing magic as a way of controlling these powers.

In many ways, nature is either held as inimical or as an idyllic utopia if left undisturbed by man. Yet the truth is somewhere between these two extremes: nature is what man and all the other creatures and plants on earth both survive in and create by their actions, and upon which all depend for survival. Driven by adaptability and mutation, nature has evolved and changed over time, and by this I mean the shape of the earth in terms of continents, the oxygen content, temperatures, the climate, and plants, animals, marine creatures, and birds that have inhabited each era or epoch as shown in Scotese’s animations and timelines of the world[14]. The earth’s climate has changed, gradually and naturally, over many millennia, yet we are currently seeing rapid changes to which the mechanism of evolution cannot respond. That is Jonas’s fear of technology, as we have discussed.

However, is it possible to respect both nature and technology for the benefits they confer on us, as well as the possible destruction they can wreak on us? I would argue that it is possible, that there does not necessarily need to be an either/or situation. Technology has, in many ways, enhanced and supported nature, through such projects as the Green Belt Movement in Kenya[15] that uses current media such as the Internet to both raise funds and inform people of their actions. Provided we think carefully about existing technology using the questioning technique of Romiszwoski as shown above, or some other method to implement Jonas’s ‘heuristics of fear’, there is no reason that a person cannot be in awe of both nature and technology or respect one more than the other.

Which brings me to what I conceive such respect to look like. First of all, it is an appreciation of and thankfulness for, the benefits anything confers on us. Secondly, it is a respect for the phenomena around us for what they are, intrinsically and in essence, a seeing of the value that each and everything has simply by its existence. Thirdly, it is a careful and considered approach to changing anything without thinking of the short and long-term consequences.

Overall, respect is not, despite the saying, something to be earned. Instead, it is something to be given, freely, to all we are surrounded by. How does this giving manifest itself?

We care for and take care of things. We treat them as irreplaceable, even if they are made to be discarded after a single use. We regard them as precious. It can thus be seen that I feel respect is an attitude taken up by a person, by society, and by humanity. The attitude of respect is shown at thanksgiving for the food we eat, the phones we use, the electrical grid that supports our comforts, and is the complete opposite of taking anything for granted.

How can we inculcate such respect? Through education, stories, examples, and celebrations designed to honor and laud this world, all in it and all to come.

References

Feibleman, James K. (1979). Technology and Human Nature. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 10 (1):35-41.

Graham, Steve, and Riebeek, Holli. (2006). Hurricanes: The Greatest Storms on Earth : Feature Articles. Accessed 2 15, 2024. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/hurricanes/hurricanes_2.php.

Graves, Zach and Cook-Deegan, Robert. “Incorporating Ethics Into Technology Assessment.” Issues in Science and Technology 36, no. 1 (2019): 26–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26949074.

Green Belt Movement. https://www.greenbeltmovement.org/

Huppert, Herbert E. and Sparks, Stephen J. (2006) Extreme natural hazards: population growth, globalization and environmental change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.364: 1875–1888. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2006.1803

Jonas, Hans. “Toward a Philosophy of Technology.” The Hastings Center Report 9, no. 1 (1979): 34–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561700.

Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior?.” Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239-260. Accessed 2 13, 2024. https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504620220145401.

Romiszowski, A. J. (2012). Technology and Moral or Ethical Values: Three Questions; Many More Answers. Educational Technology, 52(1), 10-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429983

Sagan, Scott D. “Ethics, Technology & War.” Daedalus 145, no. 4 (2016): 6–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24916779.

Tan, Lth, and KL Ong. 2002. “The Impact of Medical Technology on Healthcare Today.” Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine 9 (4): 231-236. Accessed 2 13, 2024. http://hkcem.com/html/publications/journal/2002-4/231-236.pdf.

Taviss, Irene. “A Survey of Popular Attitudes toward Technology.” Technology and Culture 13, no. 4 (1972): 606–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3102838.

Williams, James. “HUMANITY, TECHNOLOGY, AND NATURE: A RECIPE FOR CRISES?” Icon 25, no. 2 (2020): 8–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26983752.

Citations

[1] Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior?.” Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239-260

[2] Hans Jonas, “Toward a Philosophy of Technology.” The Hastings Center Report 9, no. 1 (1979): 36.

[3] Feibleman, James K. (1979). Technology and Human Nature. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 10 (1): 40

[4] Irene Taviss. “A Survey of Popular Attitudes toward Technology.” Technology and Culture 13, no. 4 (1972): 620.

[5] This so-called standard of living is more and more centered around having the latest in gadgets and time-saving appliances, as well as having more disposable income with which to purchase such gadgets and appliances. The idea that the standard of living is not measured by material goods but by contentment is sadly no longer applicable to many, as contentment seems to rest on what we own rather than how we live.

[6] Scott Sagan. “Ethics, Technology & War.” Daedalus 145, no. 4 (2016): 6

[7] Huppert, Herbert E. and Sparks, Stephen J. (2006) Extreme natural hazards: population growth, globalization and environmental change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.364: 1875

[8] Huppert and Sparks, Extreme Natural Hazards: 1889

[9] Graham, Steve, and Riebeek, Holli. (2006). Hurricanes: The Greatest Storms on Earth : Feature Articles. Accessed 2 15, 2024. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/hurricanes/hurricanes_2.php

[10] Romiszowski, A. J. (2012). Technology and Moral or Ethical Values: Three Questions; Many More Answers. Educational Technology, 52(1): 12.

[11] Tan, Lth, and KL Ong. 2002. “The Impact of Medical Technology on Healthcare Today.” Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine 9 (4): 231

[12] Romiszowski, A. J. (2012). Technology and Moral or Ethical Values: Three Questions; Many More Answers. Educational Technology, 52(1): 13

[13] James Williams. “HUMANITY, TECHNOLOGY, AND NATURE: A RECIPE FOR CRISES?” Icon 25, no. 2 (2020): 15

[14] Scotese, C.R. Climate History. Climate History (scotese.com)

[15] https://www.greenbeltmovement.org/