The framing of this piece from the start concerns me. We are not separate from nature. We are part of the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the geosphere. If we are taking a systems level perspective on our relationship to other Earth System processes and the causes of global change, we need to shift our language. Instead of using natural vs non-natural, let’s use human and non-human.
I've already grappled with this issue and I generally agree with your conclusions, but I'm not as optimistic about humanity's apparent progresses. I don't deny them, but there are indeed natural systems billions of times more stable than those, we build. Two examples suffice: the living system, which has thrived for more than four billion years on Earth alone, or simply the hydrogen atom, which has existed only shortly after the Big Bang. As you say, it's futile to try to predict the future. That's why it's essential to build robust systems, whatever happens. When the Romans built the Pont du Gard in southern France, they had no idea it would still be standing today.
Robustness implies avoiding unnecessary complexity, using and reusing proven techniques, materials, and tools, but also employing certain self-stabilization and evolutionary development techniques. These properties sit uneasily with our economic ideology, which idolizes novelty and rapid development at the expense of reliability. Moreover, humankind itself has become the greatest threat to humanity. Unfortunately, I don't see much progress in these areas.
I was just about to fall asleep but I am happy that I found this post just now - good stuff to discuss with a friend over a beer! And Anton has a point!
This article is directionally correct but needs a better ontology of complex systems. A claim of "continually increasing mastery over nature" assumes an ergodic system with smooth, linear gradients of causality, rather than a non-ergodic system governed by emergent phase shifts.
The real challenge for progress is knowing when “mastery” is merely displacing variance into nastier forms that may be less frequent but more catastrophic. We mastered putting out local fires, but in doing so created the conditions for far worse megafires. Levees and Katrina, antibiotics and resistant superbugs, fertilizer and ocean hypoxia—mastery can rise in the mean while falling in the long tail.
Progress can play nicely with complexity, but only if it begins with a radical upgrade in our understanding of what it means to intervene in non-ergodic systems. Interventions that concentrate or displace variance will look like mastery until they don't.
I agree with most of what you've written here (also a big fan of the Technohumanist Manifesto)! However, I've always taken issue with the commonly used definition of "natural" as "non-human" since humans are an inseparable part of the universe/nature. I certainly agree that we should try to improve our environment and reorganize the biosphere to support the flourishing of sentient life.
I think framing such actions as "mastering nature" is both a (i) logical contradiction and (ii) a bad PR move since (i) there is no such thing as unnatural/supernatural and (ii) people are very wary of narratives where authority imposes control. In my view, it's more of "nature learning to master itself" or "nature developing as a self-improving system" or "nature becoming increasingly well-organized by synthesizing new tech".
(To this effect, I've even published a philosophy journal article titled "CyberGaia: Earth as Cyborg" which explores the implications of the indistinguishability of humans and nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02822-y). To summarize, I think that well-developed technologies to facilitate cybernetic control of non-human systems towards flourishing is highly desirable, but I would not call this mastery over nature since everything is nature.
“Natural” can mean everything in existence, including humans (as opposed to “supernatural”), but this is not how it is commonly used.
“Natural” can also mean everything non-human (as opposed to “artificial”), which is more common usage, especially in discussions of the environment.
So “mastering nature” is not a contradiction in that sense. As for whether it's good PR, I am consciously choosing a provocative formulation because I think a radical rethinking is necessary.
As for authority imposing control, I think that's bad when humans do it to each other, but necessary for humans to do to non-human nature.
Although 'natural' is commonly used to mean non-human, my point is that the division between human and nonhuman parts of the universe is an arbitrarily assigned one which introduces troubling inconsistencies. Particularly in the context of technology. People often say technology is unnatural, yet it is simply an extension of biology, another adaptation. (Additionally, many nonhuman animals build technology-like items and architectures). Whether you're a bacterium, a bird, a bee, or a human, you are a bunch of atoms playing out thermodynamic patterns. Technology is simply one more abstraction of such patterns.
I realize my framework for thinking about nature is not how most people look at the world, but I would argue that seeing humans (and tech) as part of nature represents a more consistent way of thinking about the complex system that is the universe. For these reasons, I find common moralistic critiques of the broader concept of technology highly unconvincing. In my view, one ought to instead evaluate technologies and all that goes into them on a case by case basis as to whether/how they improve the world.
Regarding PR: while it's not how I would personally approach the matter, I respect the bold strategy for sure. I hope you are successful in leading people to rethink their assumptions!
I agree with most of what you’ve written, however I do not think this is “mastery”. Mastery implies control. We can’t control nature, we learn to adapt and co-exist. This is what you are implying. Not mastery.
When floods threaten our cities, do we learn to adapt to the flood? Or co-exist with it? Or do we build dams and levees?
When polio threatens our children, do we learn to adapt to their death and paralysis? Or to co-exist with the virus? Or do we conquer it with vaccines?
1. Insulating ourselves locally and temporarily does not guarantee safety in perpetuity. For example, to be able to evacuate and rebuild entire human settlements that are under recurring natural threats (that are becoming more and more unpredictable in frequency and impact) you would need to have access to unlimited resources.
2. Mastering nature would mean operating in planetary systems at temporal scales that evade current human reach and understanding: ocean heat transport, atmospheric circulation, water circulation, planetary albedo, reversing ecosphere degradation at scale. After playing with the stick in the sand for 150 years our planet is ravaged by resource extraction and ecological destruction.
3. The idea of 'taming nature' is a medieval/Christian belief that seems a tad outdated when you look around. We are the dominant species on this planet and have the power to decide which other species live or die. There's nothing left to tame but ourselves.
4. When thinking about progress we must first question the frameworks in which we operate. The 'mastering nature' framework that led to exploitation and destruction at a planetary level cannot miraculously lead to utopia and progress in the future. We need new frameworks to build real progress.
Yes, let's question the frameworks in which we operate!
My framework is an anthropocentric one, a morality of humanism in which human life and well-being are the north star, as I've stated in The Techno-Humanist Manifesto. You might start with this essay about mastery over nature if you want to see where I'm coming from: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/the-surrender-of-the-gods-part-2
We can and should gain mastery over nature in all the ways that matter, and bend it to our will. We already are well on our way, and whether we ever "arrive" matters less than our continual progress in that direction.
[*Of course, weather plays as a small part in climate livability, yet as Jason points out, not in any largely relevant way. The same goes that there are factors other than energy in climate mastery. We might read the above functions as "largely a function of..."]
I read and enjoyed that essay. I would certainly include control under mastery. And especially informed by essays such as yours, I discuss that idea among many others before summarizing in this way.
Oddly encouraging. Thank you!
The framing of this piece from the start concerns me. We are not separate from nature. We are part of the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the geosphere. If we are taking a systems level perspective on our relationship to other Earth System processes and the causes of global change, we need to shift our language. Instead of using natural vs non-natural, let’s use human and non-human.
Yes, I have argued elsewhere that in common usage, “natural” simply means “non-human.” And for that reason “natural” doesn't mean “good.”
I've already grappled with this issue and I generally agree with your conclusions, but I'm not as optimistic about humanity's apparent progresses. I don't deny them, but there are indeed natural systems billions of times more stable than those, we build. Two examples suffice: the living system, which has thrived for more than four billion years on Earth alone, or simply the hydrogen atom, which has existed only shortly after the Big Bang. As you say, it's futile to try to predict the future. That's why it's essential to build robust systems, whatever happens. When the Romans built the Pont du Gard in southern France, they had no idea it would still be standing today.
Robustness implies avoiding unnecessary complexity, using and reusing proven techniques, materials, and tools, but also employing certain self-stabilization and evolutionary development techniques. These properties sit uneasily with our economic ideology, which idolizes novelty and rapid development at the expense of reliability. Moreover, humankind itself has become the greatest threat to humanity. Unfortunately, I don't see much progress in these areas.
I was just about to fall asleep but I am happy that I found this post just now - good stuff to discuss with a friend over a beer! And Anton has a point!
This article is directionally correct but needs a better ontology of complex systems. A claim of "continually increasing mastery over nature" assumes an ergodic system with smooth, linear gradients of causality, rather than a non-ergodic system governed by emergent phase shifts.
The real challenge for progress is knowing when “mastery” is merely displacing variance into nastier forms that may be less frequent but more catastrophic. We mastered putting out local fires, but in doing so created the conditions for far worse megafires. Levees and Katrina, antibiotics and resistant superbugs, fertilizer and ocean hypoxia—mastery can rise in the mean while falling in the long tail.
Progress can play nicely with complexity, but only if it begins with a radical upgrade in our understanding of what it means to intervene in non-ergodic systems. Interventions that concentrate or displace variance will look like mastery until they don't.
I agree with most of what you've written here (also a big fan of the Technohumanist Manifesto)! However, I've always taken issue with the commonly used definition of "natural" as "non-human" since humans are an inseparable part of the universe/nature. I certainly agree that we should try to improve our environment and reorganize the biosphere to support the flourishing of sentient life.
I think framing such actions as "mastering nature" is both a (i) logical contradiction and (ii) a bad PR move since (i) there is no such thing as unnatural/supernatural and (ii) people are very wary of narratives where authority imposes control. In my view, it's more of "nature learning to master itself" or "nature developing as a self-improving system" or "nature becoming increasingly well-organized by synthesizing new tech".
(To this effect, I've even published a philosophy journal article titled "CyberGaia: Earth as Cyborg" which explores the implications of the indistinguishability of humans and nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02822-y). To summarize, I think that well-developed technologies to facilitate cybernetic control of non-human systems towards flourishing is highly desirable, but I would not call this mastery over nature since everything is nature.
“Natural” can mean everything in existence, including humans (as opposed to “supernatural”), but this is not how it is commonly used.
“Natural” can also mean everything non-human (as opposed to “artificial”), which is more common usage, especially in discussions of the environment.
So “mastering nature” is not a contradiction in that sense. As for whether it's good PR, I am consciously choosing a provocative formulation because I think a radical rethinking is necessary.
As for authority imposing control, I think that's bad when humans do it to each other, but necessary for humans to do to non-human nature.
I make the case at length here: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/the-surrender-of-the-gods-part-2
Although 'natural' is commonly used to mean non-human, my point is that the division between human and nonhuman parts of the universe is an arbitrarily assigned one which introduces troubling inconsistencies. Particularly in the context of technology. People often say technology is unnatural, yet it is simply an extension of biology, another adaptation. (Additionally, many nonhuman animals build technology-like items and architectures). Whether you're a bacterium, a bird, a bee, or a human, you are a bunch of atoms playing out thermodynamic patterns. Technology is simply one more abstraction of such patterns.
I realize my framework for thinking about nature is not how most people look at the world, but I would argue that seeing humans (and tech) as part of nature represents a more consistent way of thinking about the complex system that is the universe. For these reasons, I find common moralistic critiques of the broader concept of technology highly unconvincing. In my view, one ought to instead evaluate technologies and all that goes into them on a case by case basis as to whether/how they improve the world.
Regarding PR: while it's not how I would personally approach the matter, I respect the bold strategy for sure. I hope you are successful in leading people to rethink their assumptions!
I agree with most of what you’ve written, however I do not think this is “mastery”. Mastery implies control. We can’t control nature, we learn to adapt and co-exist. This is what you are implying. Not mastery.
When floods threaten our cities, do we learn to adapt to the flood? Or co-exist with it? Or do we build dams and levees?
When polio threatens our children, do we learn to adapt to their death and paralysis? Or to co-exist with the virus? Or do we conquer it with vaccines?
This is an anachronistic view on several levels:
1. Insulating ourselves locally and temporarily does not guarantee safety in perpetuity. For example, to be able to evacuate and rebuild entire human settlements that are under recurring natural threats (that are becoming more and more unpredictable in frequency and impact) you would need to have access to unlimited resources.
2. Mastering nature would mean operating in planetary systems at temporal scales that evade current human reach and understanding: ocean heat transport, atmospheric circulation, water circulation, planetary albedo, reversing ecosphere degradation at scale. After playing with the stick in the sand for 150 years our planet is ravaged by resource extraction and ecological destruction.
3. The idea of 'taming nature' is a medieval/Christian belief that seems a tad outdated when you look around. We are the dominant species on this planet and have the power to decide which other species live or die. There's nothing left to tame but ourselves.
4. When thinking about progress we must first question the frameworks in which we operate. The 'mastering nature' framework that led to exploitation and destruction at a planetary level cannot miraculously lead to utopia and progress in the future. We need new frameworks to build real progress.
Yes, let's question the frameworks in which we operate!
My framework is an anthropocentric one, a morality of humanism in which human life and well-being are the north star, as I've stated in The Techno-Humanist Manifesto. You might start with this essay about mastery over nature if you want to see where I'm coming from: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/the-surrender-of-the-gods-part-2
What is your framework?
We can and should gain mastery over nature in all the ways that matter, and bend it to our will. We already are well on our way, and whether we ever "arrive" matters less than our continual progress in that direction.
I tell my students (in summary):
Climate safety / livability = f(climate mastery), with Climate mastery = f(energy)
Climate safety / livability ≠ weather (or climate conditions)
[*Of course, weather plays as a small part in climate livability, yet as Jason points out, not in any largely relevant way. The same goes that there are factors other than energy in climate mastery. We might read the above functions as "largely a function of..."]
True, although I think climate mastery should also include climate control, as I argue here: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/we-should-install-a-thermostat-on
I read and enjoyed that essay. I would certainly include control under mastery. And especially informed by essays such as yours, I discuss that idea among many others before summarizing in this way.