In “Perfectly natural” (February 2020), Brian Calvert seems to want to redefine the term nature so that it includes humans and their machines. One of the great advances in human civilization and environmental ethics was the recognition that what we call nature was not placed on this Earth for the benefit of humankind to be consumed and exploited. We now recognize the importance of natural ecosystems that are unaffected by human industry for both the health of the planet and the preservation of all species, including humans. Attempting to include humans and their disproportional impact on the global environment is a step backwards.
Humans were once a part of the natural world. We have been traveling on foot over snow for hundreds of thousands of years. Our fiberglass skis and plastic boots are evolutionary descendants of the wood and leather artifacts of our predecessors. However, there is nothing “natural” about a human traveling up to 60 mph perched on a 500-pound machine powered by an internal combustion engine emitting 100 decibels of noise and noxious chemicals out the tailpipe. Calvert wants to change our ethics. What is wrong with the old ethic of “Do what you want, but do not harm others”? We should add, “and do minimal harm to the environment” to that.
—Jim Gibson, via email
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Backwards thinking.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
