Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

Does nature control us, or do we control nature? Living in the woods, I get a feeling the nature really controls us. However, going to cities, it looks like we control nature. Thoughts?

Nature still controls us.

Hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc.

Also, if we could control nature, lots of places in the world would likely be much more... habitable.

I don't think "control" is the right word.

We certainly don't "control" nature (no weather machines or earthquake generators), though we can harness it (windmills, hydroelectric dams, etc...). Nature doesn't really control us either -- while most of us will come in out of the rain, we've also got umbrellas to keep us dry and comfortable if we decide we want to be outside anyway. Sure, there are incredible ecological forces that can shift the way humanity lives, but we resist those forces. We build architecture that won't collapse in an earthquake, we live on the coasts where hurricanes and typhoons can strike. Big cities create their own ecosystems, even affecting the air temperature and humidity around them. Most examples of adaptation are of animals adapting to conditions that humans have created. In other words, we do provide some influence on Nature. Nature also provides an arguably greater influence on humanity -- we grow food where we do because that's where it grows best naturally. Elevated highways in Nebraska are built with defrosting apparatuses to combat the freezing winters; similar structures in Texas don't have those devices.

Or, to maintain the thought of "control," one could look at it this way -- from a macroscopic scale, Nature dominates humanity. But on a smaller scale, humanity comes out on top -- there is an amazing amount of modification of the way Nature works, even out in the country. Fences, fields, river restoration projects, even the sorts of trees we decide to plant change Nature remarkably. I'm Nebraskan -- Left to Nature, there would be virtually no trees in Nebraska; almost all the trees in the state are here because humans planted them. Our fields are as productive as they are because we irrigate, and we use science in the form of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and genetic modification to improve yields. It's not quite "control" as harnessing the elements with a spear and magic helmet, but we certainly aren't letting it take it's own course.

I agree with him

It depends on what you mean by "nature". Is nature the trees, air, and ecosystems around us? Or does nature stand for an agent that controls and creates all matter of life?

It's an interesting concept. If we assume "nature" stands for the birds and trees, so to speak, then neither of us control the other, I believe avwolf hit it right on the money. But if you define "nature" as the agent around us, it could have various other connotations. Is nature controlled by a higher power, for instance? If it is, then it is not nature we are trying to control, but a being of higher power- God, if you will. In that respect, nature indirectly controls humanity through the actions of God.

I don't know, when I voted I was thinking of nature as in our own nature. Those little subconscious drives to do certain things.

Also, even if there were no trees in Nebraska, nature was probably getting along fine without it. The fact that we have to adapt and resist what nature throws at us shows nature affects what we do. We can affect nature, but whether or not we were around, animals and plants were going to have to keeping changing, anyway. Except for our environment, all we've changed is the weather.

I don't understand what you mean by nature not coming out on top. Does it have to? Isn't the whole purpose of evolution [if you believe it] for an animal to come out on top? And didn't God [if you believe that] make man to be the stewards of the Earth? Either way, it's sort of in man's job description to be on top of its environment. Still see us as animals, though.

Neither has any more control than the other. It's a bit like the irresistable force meeets the immovable object.

Ah, your view is much more fun. That's a very very complicated thing to consider -- philosophers have been doing it since before recorded history. So far as I know, there's no definite answer yet. :) I'd argue that mankind is able to triumph over its nature, become more than itself. But I take a dim view of human nature (though far from the dimmest), so it's obvious when we triumph over our natures by my view. And you also get into an argument as to what exactly is human nature. Depending on your opinion of nature, humanity could be exhibiting rather substantial victories and amounts of control over it every moment of every day.


Oh, yes. Nebraska used to be a prairie -- a wide grassland. I don't mean that Nature wouldn't work without human intervention, that's obviously false. I'm remarking that we can force Nature to adapt to our will, just as we've reacted and adapted to counter Nature.

On the large scale, there is no control. We are destroying nature, and nature trys to destroy us. We try to control nature, but it always breaks free. nature trys to hold us at bay, but we keep going.

It's more of a symbiotic evolution, then.


Nature doesn't try to destroy us. Not actively, anyway.

Nature does try to destroy us in a way... sure tornado's and other nature violence are there whether we are here or not. But how about HIV, cancer and who knows what uncurable, deadly sickness we'll get next? That IS nature trying to destroy us... nature is actively looking for a way to thin out the over populated human race. And wether we like it or not we have no way of controlling that.
If you ask me nature controls us and we think we can control nature too.

If one defines nature as the laws of physics, then it controls us, more through a set of boundaries than anything else.

We cannot control nature, but man refuses to accept those facts.....when shall we learn we are NOT omnipotent, we CANNOT control everything, and move on?

Well, everything has to die one way or another, doesn't it? I don't get how you see nature to be something cooking up virus to kill us.

mind the part I've put in bold... we're basicely with so many that our planet can't support us and in nature you'll see that every population that's grown too big gets something nasty to restore the balance

Edit: who is the one person who voted for we control nature? plz share you're opinion why. It might add an interesting demention to the discussion. Promiss I won't flame you ^^